From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 1 04:56:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:26:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off Message-ID: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> The NSA snooping revelations have underlined the urgent need for multilateral governance of the world wide web The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece As per tradition, the opening address of the 68th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was given by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. She was followed by President Barack Obama, who, as one wag put it, had read her speech the day before. Although the previous week’s cancellation of the Brazilian presidential visit to the United States, something unheard of in recent memory, had already sent a strong signal about Brazil’s displeasure with the NSA’s snooping revelations (including the President’s own e-mails and phone calls), Ms Rousseff didn’t mince words in her UNGA speech either, delivering a second rebuke to Mr. Obama and his administration. *Latin American ties* How significant is this spat between the two largest powers in the Western Hemisphere? Is it just another piece of diplomatic posturing, soon to be forgotten and swept under the rug, or is there more to it than meets the eye? What does it tell us about the state of U.S.-Latin American relations, on a downhill spiral since 2009? Brazil is often described as a swing state, in the South, but from the West, a democracy traditionally friendly to the U.S., that fought on the side of the Allies in World War Two, but with an independent foreign policy. One standard response is that the spat only hurts Brazil. The U.S. President has enough on his plate these days to worry about Latin America. Moreover, Brazil’s recent economic slump would seem to indicate the South American country needs more U.S. trade and investment. Not taking part in this year’s only White House state dinner would thus represent a missed opportunity for Brazil. Yet, Washington can’t have it both ways. Either Brazil is considered a strategic partner or it is not, in which case one wonders about the criteria that inform such a category, which would exclude the world’s seventh largest economy. If the former, having these differences aired in public, let alone in such a high-visibility platform as the UNGA’s opening address, cannot be a good thing. To be fair, Brasilia gave Washington plenty of time to come up with a satisfying response, including at a bilateral meeting between both Presidents at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg earlier last month, and a special visit by Foreign Minister Luiz Alberto Figueiredo to Washington to meet with U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Yet, both the White House and the State Department dithered and allowed the visit, the first by a Brazilian President since 1995, to unravel. Given what is at stake in the multilayered U.S.-Brazilian agenda, this is surprising. *Oil stakes* What takes the NSA’s Brazilian spying allegations beyond the tired and trite argument that “everybody does it” (to which the Brazilian response is, “well, we don’t”) is the targets involved. President Rousseff’s own e-mails and phone calls merited particular attention from Washington. Moreover, according to the revelations of the /O Globo /newspaper from the files provided by Edward Snowden, another top target was Petrobras, the Brazilian state oil company. Petrobras, the fourth largest oil company in the world, with an annual turnover of $90 billion, can hardly be considered a security risk or potential funder of terrorism. What Petrobras does have, is some of the most sophisticated technology for deep-sea oil drilling, something U.S. oil companies are keen to get their hands on. Petrobras also plays a leading role in the bidding process for the Libra subsalt oilfields in the Santos Basin, off Brazil’s southern coast — coming up in October — in which U.S. oil giant Chevron takes part. These are rich pickings, totalling some 12 billion barrels of recoverable oil, out of 80 to 100 billion of barrels of oil in that area. Petrobras says the security of the auction is not compromised, and that the bid will go on as planned. Yet, who can be absolutely sure about that? If Chevron walks off with some prize oil blocks, can anybody guarantee it was not because of privileged information, courtesy of the NSA? *Defence contracts* Another significant issue on the bilateral agenda is defence contracts. The Brazilian Air Force needs to upgrade its fleet of fighter jets, and U.S. company Boeing is competing with France’s Dassault and Sweden’s Saab for a lucrative contract valued at $4 to 5 billion. Brazil is undertaking a major upgrade of its military platforms, and the last thing the U.S. wants is to be excluded from some of the juiciest defence hardware purchases around. Beyond these rather narrow U.S. concerns, there are larger issues at stake for two of the world’s largest democracies. Perhaps none is as salient as that of Internet governance. *Controlling the net* The United States has for long portrayed itself as the foremost champion of internet freedom. Efforts by a number of countries in the South to establish a multilateral framework for internet governance have been rejected by Washington and its allies as misguided efforts by government to interfere in a self-regulating system that has thrived because it is managed by (mostly U.S.) business. Under this guise of internet freedom, however, Big Brother is watching all of us, and leading U.S. internet companies like Google, Microsoft and Facebook have provided whatever information the NSA and the U.S. government request. Suddenly, the cause of internet freedom has morphed into the cause of finding out what we are all writing and telling each other — all for our own good, of course. With 80 per cent of global internet traffic going through U.S. servers, there is a problem. Brazil, with 44 per cent internet penetration and a population that includes some of the highest numbers of users on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, would like to see this changed. Brazil would also like to upgrade its ineffectual cybersecurity systems. Fibre-optic submarine cables that link up Brazil directly with western Europe (thus bypassing the U.S.), bills that would mandate the storing of digital data on Brazilians in Brazil, and other such measures are on the table. Some of these measures may work, some may not. In turn, this might lead other countries to create their own “national Internet,” defeating the very purpose of the world wide web. Thus, the danger of a Balkanisation of the Internet is real and rings especially for countries like India, whose IT and IT-enabled services sector depend so heavily on it. It is in everybody’s interest that the U.S.-Brazil spat be resolved amicably. For those who believe that the knowledge society is here to stay, and that worldwide connectivity is its handmaiden, this should include a step back from the abyss of breaking up the internet. One way forward is through multilateral governance of the web and stronger penalties for violating our privacy. /(Jorge Heine is CIGI professor of global governance at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario. He tweets at /@jorgeheinel/)/ Keywords: Brazil , USA , Brazil-US relations , Brazil-US spat , 68th United Nations General Assembly , Balkanisation , cyber security measures , Dilma Rousseff , Barack Obama Printable version | Oct 1, 2013 11:00:50 AM | http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beyond-the-brazilus-spat/article5186893.ece © The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Oct 1 07:10:04 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:10:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off In-Reply-To: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> References: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Incidentally, the title includes *multilateral*, a word that has already produced loads of heated debates in connection with multistakeholder. In this context the choice seems intentional. Another expression is *governance of the world wide web* (WWW). While WWW is as fuzzy as internet, one may wonder if there is any specific intention in this less common expression. Louis - - - On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM, parminder wrote: [from The Hindu] > The NSA snooping revelations have underlined the urgent need for > multilateral governance of the world wide web > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Oct 1 07:15:03 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 07:15:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Brazil Becomes Hot Market for Surveillance Technology Ahead of World Cup Message-ID: FYI - Please contact the authors directly, as i'm just posting a copy of this report given the conversations on this list. ... Brazil has become priority for the global surveillance industry.... http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/09/27/brazil-becomes-a-big-survelliance-market-player-for-the-world-cup/ This article, written by Bruno Fonseca, Jessica Mota, Luiza Bodenmüller and Natalia Viana, was originally published on September 6, 2013 by Agência Pública as part of its #SpyFiles3 special coverage. Shortly after being informed of US National Security Agency (NSA) spying, President Dilma Rouseff asked ministers Paulo Bernardo (Communication) and José Eduardo Cardozo (Justice) to include in the Marco Civil da Internet, a charter of Brazilian Internet users, a mechanism that allows the suspension of operation of companies that cooperate with international spying schemes. “It could apply to banks, or telephone companies,” said the Minister of Communication. But the security of sensitive data could also be guaranteed by multinational surveillance companies, given that a large part of the increasing demand for surveillance in the World Cup will be supplied by sector giants – the same companies that provide equipment and software to police forces all over the world, including the American government and the NSA. Most of them are mentioned in the recent publication by Wikileaks, part of the Spy Files 3 project, a compilation of 249 documents from 92 companies, among them brochures, contracts and metadata referring to some of the business leaders of the sector. They show that, in relation to mega-events, Brazil has become priority for the global surveillance industry. The Extraordinary Secretariat for Large Events (SESGE) has been acquiring a number of technologies for public security. Two hundred million Brazilian reais [nearly 87 million US dollars] have been spent on national-level contracts. And the industry of surveillance equipment is betting heavily on taking advantage of this opportunity. In recent years, a number of industry fairs have taken place in the country. When surveillance specialists get together In July, in Brasilia it was ISS World‘s turn, bringing together policy, security officials and intelligence analysts for training in legal interception, high tech electronic investigations and networked data collection. Financed by the biggest in the sector, like Gamma Group, Hackingtean, Cobhan Surveillance, Hidden Technology, GlimmerGlass and the Brazilian firm Suntech, the directors of these companies lead workshops. For example, some courses taught participants how to use social networks as open sources in criminal investigations, or how to better use Facebook: from security on Facebook through to retention of data and interaction with security forces. Another training, given by the firm Group 2000 Netherlands, looked at the how interception of data works at a national level, combined with LBS (location-based service) – a computer programming service that allows for inclusion of place and time in a system as it is used. The firm IPS also featured social media and webmail: the architecture of Big Data for mass interception, beyond the course on “expert intrusion” of social networks and webmail. The Brazilian company Suntech, which is now part of the American group Verint, funded a whole day of training, with special focus on interception of telecommunications. Beyond the ISS, the LAAD (Latin American Aerospace & Defence), one of the main fairs of security and defense companies in Latin America, has been held in Brazil since 1995, with support from the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Justice. In recent years, mega-events have been the principal focus of this fair, home for a great deal of business in the sector. In 2011, for example, the Ministry of Defense announced a project for the Integrated Border Monitoring System (SISFRON), based on a network of sensors interlinked with control and command systems. The military wanted to accelerate the construction of the system because of the World Cup and the Olympics. The estimated cost, $6-7 billion reais [between $2.7 and 3.1 billion US dollars], enthused international markets. The reason: in spite of national firm Embraer being given the construction of the system, the Saab Group of Sweden, made it be known that its German subsidiary MEDAV will supply, as a subcontractor, the mobile and static sensor systems for the program, allowing for the monitoring and identification of HF, VHF, and UHF frequencies. This year more than 30,000 visitors attended LAAD, which hosted 720 exhibitors from 65 countries, among those present representatives from the Ministries of Defense of the Ukraine, United Kingdom, Argentina and South Africa. In 2014, year of the World Cup, a smaller version, only on security, is set for April 8-10, in Riocentro. Look out for the second part of this report, coming soon. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 1 09:04:44 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:04:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off In-Reply-To: References: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Incidentally, the title includes multilateral, a word that has already > produced loads of heated debates in connection with multistakeholder. In > this context the choice seems intentional. Probably...many of the articles in the Hindu that have been posted in the last year or so use rhetoric similar to that we have seen on this list. Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, PJS can tell us if he is ghostwriting or acting as a source for the Hindu? Predictably, some in CS have already seen the dangers of multilateralism: http://www.ifex.org/international/2013/09/25/online_surveillance/ "Privacy International and Bytes for All reject this call for more regulation of the internet, which should remain free, independent and open for all to use. The statement is a transparent attempt by these countries to limit the flow and exchange of information, thus putting at risk other rights, including the right to privacy and freedom of expression. " > > Another expression is governance of the world wide web (WWW). While WWW is > as fuzzy as internet, one may wonder if there is any specific intention in > this less common expression. perhaps. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Oct 1 10:30:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 07:30:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off In-Reply-To: References: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <018601cebeb2$c311c1a0$493544e0$@gmail.com> McTim, Without attempting to pre-judge the actual meaning of the Bytes for All intervention that you have quoted it is quite clear from the article that you are quoting from that their concerns have to do with the specifics not of multialtatal `governance` but rather of national interventions into online expression (and notably that in Pakistan where Bytes is particularly involved. This I believe, is the third time in recent months that you have either deliberately or through lack of attention provided misleading information/quotation in this forum. Notably in the other two instances no apology or errata was forthcoming from you. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 6:05 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Incidentally, the title includes multilateral, a word that has already > produced loads of heated debates in connection with multistakeholder. > In this context the choice seems intentional. Probably...many of the articles in the Hindu that have been posted in the last year or so use rhetoric similar to that we have seen on this list. Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, PJS can tell us if he is ghostwriting or acting as a source for the Hindu? Predictably, some in CS have already seen the dangers of multilateralism: http://www.ifex.org/international/2013/09/25/online_surveillance/ "Privacy International and Bytes for All reject this call for more regulation of the internet, which should remain free, independent and open for all to use. The statement is a transparent attempt by these countries to limit the flow and exchange of information, thus putting at risk other rights, including the right to privacy and freedom of expression. " > > Another expression is governance of the world wide web (WWW). While > WWW is as fuzzy as internet, one may wonder if there is any specific > intention in this less common expression. perhaps. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 1 10:53:55 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 10:53:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off In-Reply-To: <018601cebeb2$c311c1a0$493544e0$@gmail.com> References: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> <018601cebeb2$c311c1a0$493544e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:30 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > Without attempting to pre-judge the actual meaning of the Bytes for All > intervention that you have quoted it is quite clear from the article that > you are quoting from that their concerns have to do with the specifics not > of multialtatal `governance` but rather of national interventions into > online expression ?? that is not clear at all. (and notably that in Pakistan where Bytes is particularly > involved. > > This I believe, is the third time in recent months that you have either > deliberately or through lack of attention provided misleading > information/quotation in this forum. How is quoting the most specific relevant bit of an article "misquoting/misleading"? Notably in the other two instances no > apology or errata was forthcoming from you. If you accuse Google of "monopolistic behavior" and I simply point out that in fact they are not a monopoly then we have a difference of opinion, which we are both entitled to. We are not entitled to our own facts however. I note that you have thrown your hat in the ring for the co-co role, if you are elected, will you be banning me from posting because I am not sufficiently anti-Google enough? -- McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Oct 1 11:06:44 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 20:36:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off In-Reply-To: References: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: It may not be a case of ghostwriting as much as similar, not very realistic, political worldviews. The Hindu is a over century old, strongly left leaning publication that is also famous, under its past editor, for articles like this one (reprinted verbatim from Xinhua). http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/27/stories/2009022755511900.htm "Tibet on road of rapid uplift: N.Ram" To be very fair, N Ram is the same man that broke the Bofors howitzer scam (thanks to documents leaked by a whistleblower Sten Lindstrom) - massive amounts of bribery in the procurement of a new 155 mm howitzer for the Indian army (it still did end up getting procured and is a lovely, hard working piece of ordnance, one of the mainstays of India's artillery, but I digress). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_scandal I buy The Hindu because it is as local to south india as you can get - but generally use it only as a source of news about local events, and sports, and highbrow articles on literature, culture, the history of the city (all of which it does rather well). The only thing I don't touch with a bargepole is any story at all they run on politics, or internet governance (where they seem to be about the only publication I can see that shares ideas with a very vocal splinter goup / rump of this caucus, and rather to the left of the guardian in its sympathies). Even with its new editor after Ram retired. --srs (iPad) > On 01-Oct-2013, at 18:34, McTim wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> Incidentally, the title includes multilateral, a word that has already >> produced loads of heated debates in connection with multistakeholder. In >> this context the choice seems intentional. > > Probably...many of the articles in the Hindu that have been posted in > the last year or so use rhetoric similar to that we have seen on this > list. > > Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, PJS can tell us if he is > ghostwriting or acting as a source for the Hindu? > > Predictably, some in CS have already seen the dangers of multilateralism: > > http://www.ifex.org/international/2013/09/25/online_surveillance/ > > "Privacy International and Bytes for All reject this call for more > regulation of the internet, which should remain free, independent and > open for all to use. The statement is a transparent attempt by these > countries to limit the flow and exchange of information, thus putting > at risk other rights, including the right to privacy and freedom of > expression. " > > >> >> Another expression is governance of the world wide web (WWW). While WWW is >> as fuzzy as internet, one may wonder if there is any specific intention in >> this less common expression. > > > perhaps. > > > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Oct 1 11:19:30 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 08:19:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off In-Reply-To: References: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> <018601cebeb2$c311c1a0$493544e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001201cebeb9$a7e987d0$f7bc9770$@gmail.com> No. 4-- I have specifically said that I wouldn't stand for co-co... M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 7:54 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well); parminder; fredericknoronha at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:30 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > Without attempting to pre-judge the actual meaning of the Bytes for > All intervention that you have quoted it is quite clear from the > article that you are quoting from that their concerns have to do with > the specifics not of multialtatal `governance` but rather of national > interventions into online expression ?? that is not clear at all. (and notably that in Pakistan where Bytes is particularly > involved. > > This I believe, is the third time in recent months that you have > either deliberately or through lack of attention provided misleading > information/quotation in this forum. How is quoting the most specific relevant bit of an article "misquoting/misleading"? Notably in the other two instances no > apology or errata was forthcoming from you. If you accuse Google of "monopolistic behavior" and I simply point out that in fact they are not a monopoly then we have a difference of opinion, which we are both entitled to. We are not entitled to our own facts however. I note that you have thrown your hat in the ring for the co-co role, if you are elected, will you be banning me from posting because I am not sufficiently anti-Google enough? -- McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Oct 1 11:28:12 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 20:58:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off In-Reply-To: <001201cebeb9$a7e987d0$f7bc9770$@gmail.com> References: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> <018601cebeb2$c311c1a0$493544e0$@gmail.com> <001201cebeb9$a7e987d0$f7bc9770$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Which is fair. Either Louis Pouzin or Jefsey Morfin asked whether he would stand, and he declined. [and i am sorry if my ipad sends it in this disgustingly large font - I don't know what happened to it all of a sudden, probably needs a reboot] --srs (iPad) > On 01-Oct-2013, at 20:49, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > No. 4-- > > I have specifically said that I wouldn't stand for co-co... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 7:54 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well); parminder; > fredericknoronha at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:30 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> McTim, >> >> Without attempting to pre-judge the actual meaning of the Bytes for >> All intervention that you have quoted it is quite clear from the >> article that you are quoting from that their concerns have to do with >> the specifics not of multialtatal `governance` but rather of national >> interventions into online expression > > ?? that is not clear at all. > > > (and notably that in Pakistan where Bytes is particularly >> involved. >> >> This I believe, is the third time in recent months that you have >> either deliberately or through lack of attention provided misleading >> information/quotation in this forum. > > How is quoting the most specific relevant bit of an article > "misquoting/misleading"? > > > Notably in the other two instances no >> apology or errata was forthcoming from you. > > If you accuse Google of "monopolistic behavior" and I simply point out that > in fact they are not a monopoly then we have a difference of opinion, which > we are both entitled to. We are not entitled to our own facts however. > > I note that you have thrown your hat in the ring for the co-co role, if you > are elected, will you be banning me from posting because I am not > sufficiently anti-Google enough? > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 2 13:05:54 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 02:05:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Invitation - Internet Governance Webinar, 19 Sept 15:00 UTC References: <7D64ECEA-894A-4132-8BE6-0A5BC2FF2185@isoc.org> Message-ID: <6932B0F8-1B65-48B5-A4DF-32DD8CB33D49@glocom.ac.jp> looks interesting. Note, the link loads webex, and the recording playback doesn't work well for me. Others might have more luck. Adam Begin forwarded message: > From: Nicolas Seidler > Date: October 1, 2013 1:15:09 AM GMT+09:00 > To: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Invitation - Internet Governance Webinar, 19 Sept 15:00 UTC > > Dear all, > > Please find at the following link the recording of the ISOC Webinar on Internet Governance: > > ISOC Internet Governance Webinar > September 19, 2013 > 1 hour 12 mins > https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/ldr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=70841677&rKey=2dc7bb31c1e85e78 > > Best regards, > Nicolas Seidler > > > On Sep 18, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Nicolas Seidler wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> This is just a gentle reminder that the Internet Governance Webinar will be held tomorrow 19 September, at 15:00 UTC. >> >> Please find the agenda and the Webex information at the end of Constance's note. >> The Webex details are also available at this address: http://www.internetsociety.org/events/internet-governance-webinar >> >> We look forward to your participation! >> >> Best regards, >> Nicolas Seidler >> >> >> On Sep 6, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >> >>> Dear Members, >>> >>> We are pleased to invite you to an Internet Governance Webinar on 19 September (15:00 UTC; Webex details below). The intent is to prepare for IGF 2013 and discuss upcoming Internet governance challenges for the 2013-2015 period. >>> >>> With a large portion of the time allocated to dialogue, the proposed agenda (see at the end of this note) is structured with a view to maximizing interactions between all Members and staff. >>> >>> We are looking forward to the discussion! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Constance Bommelaer >>> Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships >>> The Internet Society >>> >>> www.isoc.org >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> Meeting information >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> Topic: ISOC Internet Governance Webinar >>> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 >>> Time: 5:00 pm, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) >>> Meeting Number: 921 551 709 >>> Meeting Password: Geneva >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> To start or join the online meeting >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> Go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=237714217&UID=497039222&PW=NZWJkZWYxZTJl&RT=MiMyMw%3D%3D >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> Audio conference information >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208 >>> Global call-in numbers: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=237714217&tollFree=0 >>> >>> Access code:921 551 709 >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> For assistance >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> 1. Go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/mc >>> 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". >>> To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: >>> https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=237714217&UID=497039222&ICS=MS&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=AAAAAuz2f2eH3T7kvz72RreLe/B7XblgCVs4u1JOSYkTkAxO >>> >>> To check whether you have the appropriate players installed for UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files, go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/systemdiagnosis.php. >>> >>> http://www.webex.com >>> >>> CCM:+16504793208x921551709# >>> >>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. You should inform all meeting attendees prior to recording if you intend to record the meeting. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Title: ISOC Internet Governance Webinar >>> >>> >>> Proposed format: >>> ---------------- >>> - High-level overview for each topic by ISOC staff (3 minutes maximum) >>> - Contributions from Members, interactive dialogue for each topic (about 10 min) >>> >>> ISOC staff participants: >>> ------------------------ >>> Markus Kummer, Vice President, Public Policy >>> Sally Wentworth, Senior Director, Strategic Public Policy >>> Constance Bommelaer, Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships >>> Nicolas Seidler, Policy Advisor >>> Karen Mulberry, Policy Advisor >>> Sofie Maddens, Senior Director of Global Services >>> Jane Coffin, Director Development Strategy >>> Niel Harper, Senior Manager, Next Generation Leaders >>> >>> Agenda: >>> ------- >>> • Introduction - Putting 2013-2015 into perspective >>> • Reviewing WSIS: IGF, WSIS+10 and CSTD >>> • Preparing for ITU conferences in 2014: WTDC and Plenipotentiary >>> • Regional Perspectives on Internet Governance issues >>> • The importance of (Smart) Development issues in current and upcoming Internet Governance discussions >>> • The importance of Internet Governance Capacity Building programmes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >> > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Wed Oct 2 13:20:51 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:20:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Internet Policy] Invitation - Internet Governance Webinar, 19 Sept 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <6932B0F8-1B65-48B5-A4DF-32DD8CB33D49@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7D64ECEA-894A-4132-8BE6-0A5BC2FF2185@isoc.org> <6932B0F8-1B65-48B5-A4DF-32DD8CB33D49@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1B2F3088-6F53-4A7D-A242-E0C0761FDA8D@ella.com> hi, did not work for me at all. avri On 2 Oct 2013, at 13:05, Adam Peake wrote: > looks interesting. Note, the link loads webex, and the recording playback doesn't work well for me. Others might have more luck. > > Adam > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Nicolas Seidler >> Date: October 1, 2013 1:15:09 AM GMT+09:00 >> To: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" >> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Invitation - Internet Governance Webinar, 19 Sept 15:00 UTC >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please find at the following link the recording of the ISOC Webinar on Internet Governance: >> >> ISOC Internet Governance Webinar >> September 19, 2013 >> 1 hour 12 mins >> https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/ldr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=70841677&rKey=2dc7bb31c1e85e78 >> >> Best regards, >> Nicolas Seidler >> >> >> On Sep 18, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Nicolas Seidler wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> This is just a gentle reminder that the Internet Governance Webinar will be held tomorrow 19 September, at 15:00 UTC. >>> >>> Please find the agenda and the Webex information at the end of Constance's note. >>> The Webex details are also available at this address: http://www.internetsociety.org/events/internet-governance-webinar >>> >>> We look forward to your participation! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Nicolas Seidler >>> >>> >>> On Sep 6, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Constance Bommelaer wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Members, >>>> >>>> We are pleased to invite you to an Internet Governance Webinar on 19 September (15:00 UTC; Webex details below). The intent is to prepare for IGF 2013 and discuss upcoming Internet governance challenges for the 2013-2015 period. >>>> >>>> With a large portion of the time allocated to dialogue, the proposed agenda (see at the end of this note) is structured with a view to maximizing interactions between all Members and staff. >>>> >>>> We are looking forward to the discussion! >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Constance Bommelaer >>>> Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships >>>> The Internet Society >>>> >>>> www.isoc.org >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Meeting information >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Topic: ISOC Internet Governance Webinar >>>> Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013 >>>> Time: 5:00 pm, Europe Summer Time (Paris, GMT+02:00) >>>> Meeting Number: 921 551 709 >>>> Meeting Password: Geneva >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To start or join the online meeting >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=237714217&UID=497039222&PW=NZWJkZWYxZTJl&RT=MiMyMw%3D%3D >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Audio conference information >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208 >>>> Global call-in numbers: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=237714217&tollFree=0 >>>> >>>> Access code:921 551 709 >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> For assistance >>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 1. Go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/mc >>>> 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". >>>> To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: >>>> https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=237714217&UID=497039222&ICS=MS&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=AAAAAuz2f2eH3T7kvz72RreLe/B7XblgCVs4u1JOSYkTkAxO >>>> >>>> To check whether you have the appropriate players installed for UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files, go to https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/systemdiagnosis.php. >>>> >>>> http://www.webex.com >>>> >>>> CCM:+16504793208x921551709# >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. You should inform all meeting attendees prior to recording if you intend to record the meeting. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Title: ISOC Internet Governance Webinar >>>> >>>> >>>> Proposed format: >>>> ---------------- >>>> - High-level overview for each topic by ISOC staff (3 minutes maximum) >>>> - Contributions from Members, interactive dialogue for each topic (about 10 min) >>>> >>>> ISOC staff participants: >>>> ------------------------ >>>> Markus Kummer, Vice President, Public Policy >>>> Sally Wentworth, Senior Director, Strategic Public Policy >>>> Constance Bommelaer, Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships >>>> Nicolas Seidler, Policy Advisor >>>> Karen Mulberry, Policy Advisor >>>> Sofie Maddens, Senior Director of Global Services >>>> Jane Coffin, Director Development Strategy >>>> Niel Harper, Senior Manager, Next Generation Leaders >>>> >>>> Agenda: >>>> ------- >>>> • Introduction - Putting 2013-2015 into perspective >>>> • Reviewing WSIS: IGF, WSIS+10 and CSTD >>>> • Preparing for ITU conferences in 2014: WTDC and Plenipotentiary >>>> • Regional Perspectives on Internet Governance issues >>>> • The importance of (Smart) Development issues in current and upcoming Internet Governance discussions >>>> • The importance of Internet Governance Capacity Building programmes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> https://portal.isoc.org/ >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Oct 2 16:40:02 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 17:40:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC Message-ID: Sorry for any duplication of this message. To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ Best wishes Marília -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Oct 2 16:56:21 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:56:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Brazil brings principle of Net design to statecraft: interpret surveillance as damage & route around Message-ID: http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/internet_and_statecraft_brazil_and_the_future_of_internet_governance-93553 -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Oct 2 18:09:43 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:09:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] After Snowden: Towards Distributed Security in Cyberspace. Message-ID: webcast - After Snowden: Towards Distributed Security in Cyberspace. Thursday, *October 3*, 6:00pm ET, Harvard Law School. Refreshments served. [image: berkman] Ron will put the NSA revelations in a broader context, emphasize the political economy of the cyber security industrial complex and its unintended consequences in a world of Big Data, and then spend some time outlining an alternative approach to securing cyberspace, drawing from his book, Black Code. *Ron Deibert* is Professor of Political Science, and Director of the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. He is a co-founder and a principal investigator of the OpenNet Initiative and Information Warfare Monitor (2003-2012) projects. *RSVP Required. *more information on our website> -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rondeibert.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3202 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 3 01:18:22 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:18:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marilia, Thanks for this report. Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad law.) Adam On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Sorry for any duplication of this message. > > To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy > > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ > > Best wishes > > Marília > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Oct 3 03:06:44 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:36:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some interesting thoughts from Rick Falkvinge on the BRICS cable here: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2013/09/logical-for-brics-countries-to-build-their-own-internet-infrastructure-circumventing-u-s-surveillance/ It's fascinating to see, however, how the cable is now being projected as a tool to circumvent US surveillance, while when it was first announced, the emphasis was on improved global coverage (especially better access for African countries) and better trade and development relations for BRICS countries. It may of course well be able to achieve all of these things, but it's interesting to see how those initially justifications now don't seem to be receiving too much (media) attention anymore. Best, Anja On 3 October 2013 10:48, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > Thanks for this report. > > Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern about > fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the idea is not > to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach you etc, it's not a > proposal to censor the net. I think this mis-guided and unhelpful to the > proposal. Second, any detail of the cable: who will build, who are the > partners (and has anyone looked at the telecom/appropriate law of potential > partner countries? Suspect we might not like what we find -- US and UK not > alone in having bad law.) > > Adam > > > > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Sorry for any duplication of this message. > > > > To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary > and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in > global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the > Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy > > > > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of > the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This > joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and > CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging > trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and > Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ > > > > Best wishes > > > > Marília > > > > -- > > Marília Maciel > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IRP mailing list > > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Oct 3 03:18:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:48:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1417d2e0d00.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> As it requires more than one government issued license and possibly also is a candidate to receive government subsidies, it gets advertised in whichever way is found to be politically expedient, I guess :) --srs (htc one x) On 3 October 2013 12:36:44 PM Anja Kovacs wrote: > Some interesting thoughts from Rick Falkvinge on the BRICS cable here: > > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2013/09/logical-for-brics-countries-to-build-their-own-internet-infrastructure-circumventing-u-s-surveillance/ > > It's fascinating to see, however, how the cable is now being projected as a > tool to circumvent US surveillance, while when it was first announced, the > emphasis was on improved global coverage (especially better access for > African countries) and better trade and development relations for BRICS > countries. It may of course well be able to achieve all of these things, > but it's interesting to see how those initially justifications now don't > seem to be receiving too much (media) attention anymore. > > Best, > Anja > > > On 3 October 2013 10:48, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Hi Marilia, > > > > Thanks for this report. > > > > Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern about > > fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the idea is not > > to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach you etc, it's not a > > proposal to censor the net. I think this mis-guided and unhelpful to the > > proposal. Second, any detail of the cable: who will build, who are the > > partners (and has anyone looked at the telecom/appropriate law of potential > > partner countries? Suspect we might not like what we find -- US and UK not > > alone in having bad law.) > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > > Sorry for any duplication of this message. > > > > > > To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary > > and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in > > global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the > > Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. > > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy > > > > > > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of > > the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This > > joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and > > CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging > > trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and > > Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > -- > > > Marília Maciel > > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > IRP mailing list > > > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > > > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IRP mailing list > > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Thu Oct 3 06:49:09 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 07:49:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: <1417d2e0d00.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1417d2e0d00.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: That was exactly what Marilia and I tried to highlight: that from a sort of infrastructure-building (and also capacity-building) project, the cable has been purported as an attempt to "divorce" (SIC) Brazil from a "US-centric" (SIC) Internet. On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > As it requires more than one government issued license and possibly also > is a candidate to receive government subsidies, it gets advertised in > whichever way is found to be politically expedient, I guess :) > --srs (htc one x) > > On 3 October 2013 12:36:44 PM Anja Kovacs ** wrote: > > Some interesting thoughts from Rick Falkvinge on the BRICS cable here: > > > https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2013/09/logical-for-brics-countries-to-build-their-own-internet-infrastructure-circumventing-u-s-surveillance/ > > It's fascinating to see, however, how the cable is now being projected as > a tool to circumvent US surveillance, while when it was first announced, > the emphasis was on improved global coverage (especially better access for > African countries) and better trade and development relations for BRICS > countries. It may of course well be able to achieve all of these things, > but it's interesting to see how those initially justifications now don't > seem to be receiving too much (media) attention anymore. > > Best, > Anja > > > On 3 October 2013 10:48, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Hi Marilia, >> >> Thanks for this report. >> >> Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern about >> fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the idea is not >> to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach you etc, it's not a >> proposal to censor the net. I think this mis-guided and unhelpful to the >> proposal. Second, any detail of the cable: who will build, who are the >> partners (and has anyone looked at the telecom/appropriate law of potential >> partner countries? Suspect we might not like what we find -- US and UK not >> alone in having bad law.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> > Sorry for any duplication of this message. >> > >> > To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the >> summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new >> revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized by >> DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de >> Janeiro. >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy >> > >> > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of >> the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This >> joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and >> CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging >> trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and >> Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ >> > >> > Best wishes >> > >> > Marília >> > >> > -- >> > Marília Maciel >> > Pesquisadora Gestora >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> > >> > Researcher and Coordinator >> > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> > >> > DiploFoundation associate >> > www.diplomacy.edu >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > IRP mailing list >> > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> > >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Oct 3 06:54:02 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:24:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: <1417d2e0d00.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <18BE3328-53E5-4F0C-B5E4-F8C83D9925EA@hserus.net> Which will not remove its inherent "good nature" shall we say. If there is more bandwidth coming in, and local peering set up so that local traffic stays local instead of going through costly international links .. it makes good network engineering sense (more often than not, there are exceptions based on how cheap transit is vs local interconnection ..) So let the marketers advertise it as they wish. If brazilian people access content / websites / mail providers within brazil then their local data WILL stay local once the peering etc is in place. If they use a provider hosted in the USA / subject to US law - well, they pay their money (or use the free service) and take it as a granted that their use of the service is subject to lawful intercept. The part about international gateways being monitored does get obviated to some extent if local traffic stays local .. an international bandwidth submarine cable is not going to change anything about what happens / doesn't happen to locally routed traffic. --srs (iPad) > On 03-Oct-2013, at 16:19, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > That was exactly what Marilia and I tried to highlight: that from a sort of infrastructure-building (and also capacity-building) project, the cable has been purported as an attempt to "divorce" (SIC) Brazil from a "US-centric" (SIC) Internet. > > >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> As it requires more than one government issued license and possibly also is a candidate to receive government subsidies, it gets advertised in whichever way is found to be politically expedient, I guess :) >> --srs (htc one x) >>> On 3 October 2013 12:36:44 PM Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>> Some interesting thoughts from Rick Falkvinge on the BRICS cable here: >>> >>> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2013/09/logical-for-brics-countries-to-build-their-own-internet-infrastructure-circumventing-u-s-surveillance/ >>> >>> It's fascinating to see, however, how the cable is now being projected as a tool to circumvent US surveillance, while when it was first announced, the emphasis was on improved global coverage (especially better access for African countries) and better trade and development relations for BRICS countries. It may of course well be able to achieve all of these things, but it's interesting to see how those initially justifications now don't seem to be receiving too much (media) attention anymore. >>> >>> Best, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>>> On 3 October 2013 10:48, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Hi Marilia, >>>> >>>> Thanks for this report. >>>> >>>> Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad law.) >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> >>>> > Sorry for any duplication of this message. >>>> > >>>> > To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy >>>> > >>>> > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ >>>> > >>>> > Best wishes >>>> > >>>> > Marília >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Marília Maciel >>>> > Pesquisadora Gestora >>>> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>> > >>>> > Researcher and Coordinator >>>> > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>> > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> > >>>> > DiploFoundation associate >>>> > www.diplomacy.edu >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > IRP mailing list >>>> > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IRP mailing list >>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 3 09:46:35 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:46:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <524D753B.2090004@cafonso.ca> Hi Adam & all, OK, some comments on this. The "BRICs cable" project contemplates high-capacity links to the USA and Europe, of course. Politically, with the current situation, the way this will be done is open to question regarding partnerships, cost sharing, priorities and so on. In no way this would be just a firewalled point-to-point cable Brazil-China with stop-overs in SA & India. This proposal of course is a joint venture involving private sector and the BRICs' countries, and details of this are not yet available as far as I know. There are budget constraints in all countries involved (or at least three of them...), so this is not so simple or so immediate. Also, Brazil is contemplating or actively involved in the deployment of other new direct links (Africa, Europe, encircling South America etc). As in all other new international links Brazil is considering or participating, the whole idea is to guarantee most direct routes to all regions in the planet, so that traffic does not need to go through the USA or Amsterdam or etc whatever its origin/destination. Most large economies with massive use of the Net (we are about to reach 95 million users) have the same problem and are considering or practicing a similar policy. The "Snowden revelations" are just helping to accelerate the process. No one here would be naïve to think that BR-USA links should be disregarded. To the contrary, we need planning to optimize them, and if other links come online of course there will be more capacity available for traffic from/to USA. On 10/03/2013 02:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > Thanks for this report. > > Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern > about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the > idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach > you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this > mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the > cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at > the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect > we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad > law.) > > Adam > > > > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Sorry for any duplication of this message. >> >> To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the >> summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a >> new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized >> by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV >> Rio de Janeiro. >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy >> >> >> I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ >> >> Best wishes >> >> Marília >> >> -- Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e >> Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV >> Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > >> > _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 3 10:45:56 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:45:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: <524D753B.2090004@cafonso.ca> References: <524D753B.2090004@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <15B7D8B3-FF0E-4A86-90A9-34E19985BEF6@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Carlos, Just to be clear, I mentioned fragmentation/balkanization because I think it's a misrepresentation of what's being proposed. Thanks for the additional information. I'm not sure Amsterdam is such a problem, but landing in the UK, as many transatlantic cables do, yes. I was going to mention this in another thread, but perhaps this will do: strongly recommend people read Caspar Bowden's work for the European Parliament on PRISM and FISA. Bowden's been writing about the threat of FISA, etc. for some years, Snowden has made clear just how important his work is. Caspar Bowden speaking at the European Parliament Tuesday Sept 24, Study referred to in the presentation "The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights" (need to remember it's all our rights, not just EU citizens). This earlier document "fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud" very good, BBC article shows Bowden's foresight. The points he makes about an economic response (without some government regulated nationalist/regionalist policy) are sensible. And these: Summary of Caspar, Jacob Applebaum, Bruce Schneier others speaking at an event in Lausanne on Monday also worth reading. Would be wonderful of the recent EU Parliament document linked above could be used as a briefing document for the Emerging Issues session in Bali. Unfortunately I don't think Caspar can attend the IGF. Best, Adam On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Adam & all, > > OK, some comments on this. The "BRICs cable" project contemplates > high-capacity links to the USA and Europe, of course. Politically, with > the current situation, the way this will be done is open to question > regarding partnerships, cost sharing, priorities and so on. In no way > this would be just a firewalled point-to-point cable Brazil-China with > stop-overs in SA & India. > > This proposal of course is a joint venture involving private sector and > the BRICs' countries, and details of this are not yet available as far > as I know. There are budget constraints in all countries involved (or at > least three of them...), so this is not so simple or so immediate. Also, > Brazil is contemplating or actively involved in the deployment of other > new direct links (Africa, Europe, encircling South America etc). > > As in all other new international links Brazil is considering or > participating, the whole idea is to guarantee most direct routes to all > regions in the planet, so that traffic does not need to go through the > USA or Amsterdam or etc whatever its origin/destination. Most large > economies with massive use of the Net (we are about to reach 95 million > users) have the same problem and are considering or practicing a similar > policy. The "Snowden revelations" are just helping to accelerate the > process. > > No one here would be naïve to think that BR-USA links should be > disregarded. To the contrary, we need planning to optimize them, and if > other links come online of course there will be more capacity available > for traffic from/to USA. > > On 10/03/2013 02:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Marilia, >> >> Thanks for this report. >> >> Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern >> about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the >> idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach >> you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this >> mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the >> cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at >> the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect >> we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad >> law.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Sorry for any duplication of this message. >>> >>> To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the >>> summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a >>> new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized >>> by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV >>> Rio de Janeiro. >>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy >>> >>> >>> > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of > the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This > joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and > CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and > emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, > Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> -- Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e >>> Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV >>> Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Oct 3 11:06:09 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:06:09 +0000 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: <15B7D8B3-FF0E-4A86-90A9-34E19985BEF6@glocom.ac.jp> References: <524D753B.2090004@cafonso.ca>,<15B7D8B3-FF0E-4A86-90A9-34E19985BEF6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2828C5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Just fyi re international submarine cables, Tele-Geography produces pretty maps of the same as some no doubt are aware..showing latency, lit capacity, landing stations, timeline and other fun facts. See: http://submarine-cable-map-2013.telegeography.com/ Lee ________________________________________ From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] on behalf of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 10:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso Cc: BestBits List; irp Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC Hi Carlos, Just to be clear, I mentioned fragmentation/balkanization because I think it's a misrepresentation of what's being proposed. Thanks for the additional information. I'm not sure Amsterdam is such a problem, but landing in the UK, as many transatlantic cables do, yes. I was going to mention this in another thread, but perhaps this will do: strongly recommend people read Caspar Bowden's work for the European Parliament on PRISM and FISA. Bowden's been writing about the threat of FISA, etc. for some years, Snowden has made clear just how important his work is. Caspar Bowden speaking at the European Parliament Tuesday Sept 24, Study referred to in the presentation "The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights" (need to remember it's all our rights, not just EU citizens). This earlier document "fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud" very good, BBC article shows Bowden's foresight. The points he makes about an economic response (without some government regulated nationalist/regionalist policy) are sensible. And these: Summary of Caspar, Jacob Applebaum, Bruce Schneier others speaking at an event in Lausanne on Monday also worth reading. Would be wonderful of the recent EU Parliament document linked above could be used as a briefing document for the Emerging Issues session in Bali. Unfortunately I don't think Caspar can attend the IGF. Best, Adam On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Adam & all, > > OK, some comments on this. The "BRICs cable" project contemplates > high-capacity links to the USA and Europe, of course. Politically, with > the current situation, the way this will be done is open to question > regarding partnerships, cost sharing, priorities and so on. In no way > this would be just a firewalled point-to-point cable Brazil-China with > stop-overs in SA & India. > > This proposal of course is a joint venture involving private sector and > the BRICs' countries, and details of this are not yet available as far > as I know. There are budget constraints in all countries involved (or at > least three of them...), so this is not so simple or so immediate. Also, > Brazil is contemplating or actively involved in the deployment of other > new direct links (Africa, Europe, encircling South America etc). > > As in all other new international links Brazil is considering or > participating, the whole idea is to guarantee most direct routes to all > regions in the planet, so that traffic does not need to go through the > USA or Amsterdam or etc whatever its origin/destination. Most large > economies with massive use of the Net (we are about to reach 95 million > users) have the same problem and are considering or practicing a similar > policy. The "Snowden revelations" are just helping to accelerate the > process. > > No one here would be naïve to think that BR-USA links should be > disregarded. To the contrary, we need planning to optimize them, and if > other links come online of course there will be more capacity available > for traffic from/to USA. > > On 10/03/2013 02:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Marilia, >> >> Thanks for this report. >> >> Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern >> about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the >> idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach >> you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this >> mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the >> cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at >> the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect >> we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad >> law.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Sorry for any duplication of this message. >>> >>> To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the >>> summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a >>> new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized >>> by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV >>> Rio de Janeiro. >>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy >>> >>> >>> > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of > the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This > joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and > CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and > emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, > Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> -- Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e >>> Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV >>> Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 3 12:33:16 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:33:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017601cec056$4cf7ed00$e6e7c700$@gmail.com> I don't see any contradiction between these objectives but rather they are manifestations of the same underlying set of impulses which is to establish a degree of independence (economic, security, etc.) from the current unipolar geo-political system. M From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:07 AM To: Adam Peake Cc: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; irp; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Webinar digest Brazil's role in IG & third issue of Digital Rights LAC Some interesting thoughts from Rick Falkvinge on the BRICS cable here: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2013/09/logical-for-brics-countri es-to-build-their-own-internet-infrastructure-circumventing-u-s-surveillance / It's fascinating to see, however, how the cable is now being projected as a tool to circumvent US surveillance, while when it was first announced, the emphasis was on improved global coverage (especially better access for African countries) and better trade and development relations for BRICS countries. It may of course well be able to achieve all of these things, but it's interesting to see how those initially justifications now don't seem to be receiving too much (media) attention anymore. Best, Anja On 3 October 2013 10:48, Adam Peake wrote: Hi Marilia, Thanks for this report. Couple of questions about the "BRICS cable". First, why concern about fragmentation ("balkanization"), if I understand correctly the idea is not to propose a BRICS firewall, my email will still reach you etc, it's not a proposal to censor the net. I think this mis-guided and unhelpful to the proposal. Second, any detail of the cable: who will build, who are the partners (and has anyone looked at the telecom/appropriate law of potential partner countries? Suspect we might not like what we find -- US and UK not alone in having bad law.) Adam On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Sorry for any duplication of this message. > > To all those that might be interested, I would like to share the summary and the recorded video of the debate "Is Brazil leading a new revolution in global digital policy?", which was co-organized by DiploFoundation and the Center for Technology and Society of FGV Rio de Janeiro. http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/webinar-digest-brazil-leading-new-revolution-g lobal-digital-policy > > I also take the opportunity to share with you that the third issue of the Newsletter Digital Rights in Latin America and the Caribbean. This joint initiative from ADC, Fundación Karisma, Derechos Digitales and CTS/FGV is a very good source of information about key issues and emerging trends in the regional scenario. It is published in English, Spanish and Portuguese. http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/ > > Best wishes > > Marília > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 3 21:24:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:24:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads In-Reply-To: <52411E34.1080904@itforchange.net> References: <52411E34.1080904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <03c301cec0a0$72eb0bb0$58c12310$@gmail.com> I guess a question to ask is what is the overall "governance"/policy framework which would allow a teenager in Burkina Faso to have content removed about themselves? In some ways that should be the/an objective of our deliberations… M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568 It is about putting restrictions on some kinds of ads on Internet services, applications etc that aimed at minors. It also allows minors to remove content about themselves. Whatever agreement or disagreement people may have with this particular law, one important issue here is that California can make such law, but not states in other countries, not even national governments. I mean it is so so difficult for them to enforce it, that it may not be worth attempting it. At other places, big companies may simply blackmail them by threats of withdrawal as Google did with governemnt of Taipei a few years back. (which they wont do with Gov of California).... This is how policy space for non US gov entities is shrinking fast, and what it means is that political and democratic space of our world is shrinking... A key global IG issue if there ever was one. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Oct 3 21:30:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 07:00:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads Message-ID: If a service claims to be under the jurisdiction of the courts in California, and Californian law orders the service to provide a data scrubbing mechanism to its users..  I don't see why it matters if a Burkina Faso teen wants to scrub his information, it still does get scrubbed.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 10/04/2013 6:54 AM (GMT+05:30) To: 'parminder' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads I guess a question to ask is what is the overall The "governance"/policy framework which would allow a teenager in Burkina Faso to have content removed about themselves?   In some ways that should be the/an objective of our deliberations…   M   From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads   See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568 It is about putting restrictions on some kinds of ads on Internet services, applications etc that aimed at minors. It also allows minors to remove content about themselves. Whatever agreement or disagreement people may have with this particular law, one important issue here is that California can make such law, but not states in other countries, not even national governments. I mean it is so so difficult for them to enforce it, that it may not be worth attempting it. At other places, big companies may simply blackmail them by threats of withdrawal as Google did with governemnt of Taipei a few years back. (which they wont do with Gov of California).... This is how policy space for non US gov entities is shrinking fast, and what it means is that political and democratic space of our world is shrinking... A key global IG issue if there ever was one. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 3 21:33:21 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:33:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03d701cec0a1$bc677ed0$35367c70$@gmail.com> Is that true? And supposing company X says no, sue me…? Would the teen in BF be able to obtain standing re: this in a US court? M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 6:30 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads If a service claims to be under the jurisdiction of the courts in California, and Californian law orders the service to provide a data scrubbing mechanism to its users.. I don't see why it matters if a Burkina Faso teen wants to scrub his information, it still does get scrubbed. --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 10/04/2013 6:54 AM (GMT+05:30) To: 'parminder' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads I guess a question to ask is what is the overall The "governance"/policy framework which would allow a teenager in Burkina Faso to have content removed about themselves? In some ways that should be the/an objective of our deliberations… M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568 It is about putting restrictions on some kinds of ads on Internet services, applications etc that aimed at minors. It also allows minors to remove content about themselves. Whatever agreement or disagreement people may have with this particular law, one important issue here is that California can make such law, but not states in other countries, not even national governments. I mean it is so so difficult for them to enforce it, that it may not be worth attempting it. At other places, big companies may simply blackmail them by threats of withdrawal as Google did with governemnt of Taipei a few years back. (which they wont do with Gov of California).... This is how policy space for non US gov entities is shrinking fast, and what it means is that political and democratic space of our world is shrinking... A key global IG issue if there ever was one. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Oct 3 21:55:07 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 07:25:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads In-Reply-To: <03d701cec0a1$bc677ed0$35367c70$@gmail.com> References: <03d701cec0a1$bc677ed0$35367c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <141812cd120.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> As the contract in question explicitly states US court, the teen certainly has standing or her parents do if she is a minor. The logistics of actually suing the company in California are another story --srs (htc one x) On 4 October 2013 7:03:21 AM "michael gurstein" wrote: > Is that true? And supposing company X says no, sue me…? Would the teen in > BF be able to obtain standing re: this in a US court? > > > > M > > > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, > October 03, 2013 6:30 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'parminder'; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some > restrictions on Internet ads > > > > If a service claims to be under the jurisdiction of the courts in > California, and Californian law orders the service to provide a data > scrubbing mechanism to its users.. > > > I don't see why it matters if a Burkina Faso teen wants to scrub his > information, it still does get scrubbed. > > > > > --srs > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: michael gurstein Date: 10/04/2013 6:54 AM > (GMT+05:30) To: 'parminder' > ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Californian law putting some > restrictions on Internet ads > > > I guess a question to ask is what is the overall The "governance"/policy > framework which would allow a teenager in Burkina Faso to have content > removed about themselves? > > > > In some ways that should be the/an objective of our deliberations… > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 10:08 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet ads > > > > See > > http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568 > > It is about putting restrictions on some kinds of ads on Internet services, > applications etc that aimed at minors. It also allows minors to remove > content about themselves. > Whatever agreement or disagreement people may have with this particular > law, one important issue here is that California can make such law, but not > states in other countries, not even national governments. I mean it is so > so difficult for them to enforce it, that it may not be worth attempting > it. At other places, big companies may simply blackmail them by threats of > withdrawal as Google did with governemnt of Taipei a few years back. (which > they wont do with Gov of California).... This is how policy space for non > US gov entities is shrinking fast, and what it means is that political and > democratic space of our world is shrinking... A key global IG issue if > there ever was one. > > parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 4 02:22:14 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:52:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] more on Brazil-US stand off In-Reply-To: References: <524A8E24.7080104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <524E5E96.1020604@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 01 October 2013 06:34 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> Incidentally, the title includes multilateral, a word that has already >> produced loads of heated debates in connection with multistakeholder. In >> this context the choice seems intentional. > Probably...many of the articles in the Hindu that have been posted in > the last year or so use rhetoric similar to that we have seen on this > list. > > Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, PJS can tell us if he is > ghostwriting or acting as a source for the Hindu? McTim, If you were a little less jumpy to reach conclusions and/ or make insinuations, as Michael Gurstein has repeated ticked you for, you would have noticed the name and title of the author at the end of the The Hindu's article. Does he sound like a candidate for my ghost-writing.... To quote the end of the article "/(Jorge Heine is CIGI professor of global governance at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario. He tweets at /@jorgeheinel/)/ " parminder > Predictably, some in CS have already seen the dangers of multilateralism: > > http://www.ifex.org/international/2013/09/25/online_surveillance/ > > "Privacy International and Bytes for All reject this call for more > regulation of the internet, which should remain free, independent and > open for all to use. The statement is a transparent attempt by these > countries to limit the flow and exchange of information, thus putting > at risk other rights, including the right to privacy and freedom of > expression. " > > >> Another expression is governance of the world wide web (WWW). While WWW is >> as fuzzy as internet, one may wonder if there is any specific intention in >> this less common expression. > perhaps. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 4 03:35:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 13:05:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <524E6FB4.9020304@itforchange.net> I had previously cautioned that some kind of important "Seoul Principles' will be worked out at the conference. So, friends, it is in these rather tightly-controlled forums, designed and run by OECD countries (chiefly, the US and UK, in this case) where real global Internet governance is taking place. But, from the reactions that my post on this subject got a few days back, civil society seems still insistent on keeping its head tightly dug in the sand. And we want to pursue in full vigor the rather non-consequential events like WSIS plus 10 conference to be hosted by the ITU in April next..... (Remember the UNESCO's WSIS plus 10 event earlier this year!) Any reason, why we dont target events where the powerful OECD countries, otherwise civil society's comrades-in-arms on multistakeholderism, un-regulated, bottom-up Internet and so on, undertake real global IG, and only target genuinely multi-lateral forums, like those associated with the UN, where at least all countries are allowed to participate... And these UN forums are much much more open.... Look at the Seoul conference. It is not possible to even register and attend it in an unhindered manner for a civil society organisation, what to talk about substantially participating. And see how all the preparatory processes, and actual text negotiations is shrouded in so much secrecy. Compare it to the WSIS process, where any entity could get its inputs into the text at any stage, which was then openly negotiated over a vast screen... Friends, we have got something absolutely wrong here, and need to reassess our positions and priorities. As a communication rights activist said on another list recently, characterising the current situation about global Internet governance, 'an 'irrational normal' always exists in tension, awaiting its 'the emperor has no clothes' moment . It for the global IG civil society to make that call..... Or, in default, it can awaits its own 'the emperor has no clothes' moment. What I am asking here is - do we want to write to the Seoul conference organisers about how badly and wrongly organised their meeting it, and therefore what comes out of it simply has no legitimacy... And also, at the BestBits meeting in Bali, when we discuss global IG spaces, give due prominence to such rich countries run and controlled forums - and hit at the core of illegitimate power, which is civil society's prime business to do. By the way, it is one of the funniest statements to hear ------"Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which regard cyberspace as neutral,........... " Yes, neutral for completely unhindered transgressions and theft of other people's data..... Now we know what 'neutral' and 'unregulated' really is meant to mean.... Also perhaps why these countries were so much against mentioning the term 'security' in an international enforceable agreement like the ITRs.... They sure want to keep the Internet 'neutral', and civil society merrily follows the pipe piper's alluring tune... parminder On Friday 04 October 2013 08:04 AM, Byoung-il Oh wrote: > Hi all, > > Several press reported that so called 'Seoul Principle' will be made > as an outcome of cyberspace conference in Seoul. > > http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/10/120_143618.html > > interview of Ambassador for International Security Affairs at S. > Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs > http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/32042/inside-seoul-conference-cyberspace-2013 > > In other press, (which is in Korean, so rough translation) > > Republic of Korea as well as the United States and the United Kingdom, > China and Hungary which had been under constant cyber attacks, lead > this principle and other major 20 countries including France and > Germany have agreed to it. > > > Deputy of Preparatory Secretariat told " Though US and UK, which > regard cyberspace as neutal, had show different view with China and > Russia which see as national sovereignty, but all countries > sympathized with general principle that cyberspace should be a > peaceful place, so they are tring to complete 'Seoul Principle' > through the intense debate. As of now, they are seeking agreement for > the draft from all participants, and most major countries have agreed, > so in the situation around 90~95% of the final stage." > > Best, > Oh Byoungil > > -- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 4 06:31:46 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:01:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Delivering us from surveillance Message-ID: <524E9912.2030204@itforchange.net> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/delivering-us-from-surveillance/article5197660.ece?homepage=true (The cartoon is of the the Indian Prime Minister and Obama in an embrace, and while in embrace, the Indian PM cutting the wire of Obama's surveillance equipment. ) Delivering us from surveillance The Hindu * by Arun Mohan Sukumar * Oct. 3, 2013 * original Illustration: Satwik Gade New Delhi can pursue a series of small, simple measures to help check NSA’s snooping without seriously affecting India-U.S. ties Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reluctance to raise the slightest murmur of protest against the U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) spying excesses during his American trip leaves us with one question: will NSA surveillance continue unabated? India has displayed a stunning lack of political will to even broach the issue with Washington D.C. Perhaps, this was inevitable: a Prime Minister humiliated at home by his own party can hardly be expected to sour the one foreign policy achievement that defines his legacy. Dr. Singh was busy ensuring the India-U.S. nuclear deal is operationalised before he demits office to worry about concerns that actually affect the lives and businesses of Indians. *Consensus* This is unfortunate because NSA surveillance is an area where rare consensus has emerged among the BRICS countries. At the U.N. General Assembly session in New York last week, BRICS Foreign Ministers “expressed concern” at the “unauthorised interception of communication and data,” without calling out the NSA in specific. But there exist no international regulations to protect civilians from such surveillance because the U.S., the United Kingdom and Israel in particular are opposed to any cybersecurity treaty. In 2010, Russia — backed by Brazil and China — tabled a draft convention on cybercrimes at the U.N., only to be shot down by the West. The Russian proposal specifically targeted intrusive technology and cyber attacks — the sort of stuff the NSA is adept at. But the U.S. successfully spun the narrative around to suggest autocratic countries like Russia and China wanted to clamp down on the Internet. A year later, /The New York Times /would reveal the U.S. and Israel had used precisely this technology to infect nuclear reactors in Iran with the Stuxnet virus. The U.S. used the same pretext last December in Dubai when the U.N. deliberated an international communications treaty under the auspices of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The Obama administration, however, refused to sign the International Telecom Regulations and asserted that cybersecurity be kept out of the treaty’s mandate. It insisted the Internet be unregulated to leave it “free and open.” Months later, leaked NSA documents courtesy Edward Snowden would reveal how the U.S. arm-twisted telecom companies and Internet service providers for confidential user data. Had the U.S. signed on to the ITRs, the NSA’s PRISM programme would have amounted to a gross breach of its treaty obligations. At the ITU negotiations, India chose regrettably to side with the U.S. This July, /The Hindu /disclosed how India’s Central Monitoring System (CMS) intercepts private communication in the same vein as the NSA. Given that India and the U.S. signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2011 to share “cybersecurity information and expertise,” it would not be surprising to learn that much of the CMS’ capabilities stem from our cooperation with the U.S. *Holding back* There are then three plausible reasons behind India’s refusal to take up the NSA revelations with the U.S. One, Prime Minister Singh does not wish to sully the piece de resistance in his foreign policy tab. Two, New Delhi worries about a potential blowback in ties especially on technology transfer, private investment and defence cooperation. Third, the government needs to sustain its own monitoring and intercepting of communication, for which it needs U.S. assistance. The moral basis for these justifications is shaky. Yet, with all its reservations about publicly airing grievances with the U.S., India still has a good opportunity to help rein in the NSA’s mandate. Diplomacy offers enough avenues to do so without substantially affecting India-U.S. ties. *Three steps* For starters, India could revive an IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) proposal from 2011 to set up a U.N. Committee for Internet- Related Policies (CIRP), and submit it again to the U.N. General Assembly. CIRP would comprise a rotating group of 50 countries serving in an advisory capacity on Internet governance policies. This committee would be positioned ideally to highlight egregious surveillance schemes of the U.S. and other countries. First tabled at the 66th UNGA session, this idea met with opposition from the West and advocates of Internet freedom. But in light of new circumstances, and great resentment against the U.S. and NSA’s practices, mooting CIRP is sure to generate much discussion at the U.N. The IBSA proposal should be coupled with a draft resolution for the General Assembly to adopt: one that strongly denounces practices of global surveillance and use of interceptive technologies against governments. Second, when Parliament convenes for the winter session, the Congress party — or any party or independent legislator, for that matter — could table amendments to the National Security Act and the Official Secrets Act. Broadly, the amendments would stipulate it is a punishable offence for Indian or India-based Internet and telecom companies to share confidential information about Indian citizens, public-sector institutions, and officials with foreign governments. The enforcement of these provisions, if enacted, would be supervised by a parliamentary committee. The chances these amendments are passed by Parliament are frankly slim. But the parliamentary debate that would ensue will surely include sharp and critical comments on U.S. surveillance programmes, all of which go on the record as the opinion of India’s sovereign body. Third, India could help formulate a BRICS Charter for Internet Governance, given that there is substantial agreement among member states. Among the provisions in the draft charter could be an idea adapted, ironically, from the George W. Bush administration — the Proliferation Security Initiative. The PSI was a mechanism set up by the U.S. and endorsed by “volunteer” countries to target the shipment of arms to Iran and North Korea. The simple idea behind PSI was this: while the West could do little to influence policy in Tehran and Pyongyang, it held all the economic cards to ensure these policies were not implemented. BRICS countries retain a trump card when it comes to Internet governance: their massive consumer base. To be sure, the charter should not punish or sanction Internet companies that collaborate with the U.S. government for surveillance. BRICS members would circulate an annual “name and shame” list of such companies to multilateral avenues and civil society forums across the world. The negative publicity would do more than its fair share to make IT companies rethink their surreptitious collaboration with the U.S. These are modest, but not conclusive, proposals that India could articulate to help check the NSA’s surveillance programmes. They are not aimed at setting back India-U.S. ties — in fact, pursuing such policies would only boost India’s reputation as a pursuer of independent foreign policy. /arun.sukumar at thehindu.co.in/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TH_04_Oped_new_jpg_1606138e.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 35252 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 4 11:55:52 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:55:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Edward Snowden: The Greatest Human Rights Challenge Of Our Time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <062c01cec11a$3b5a7ee0$b20f7ca0$@gmail.com> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36412.htm The Greatest Human Rights Challenge Of Our Time By Edward Snowden Sept. 30, 2013 hearing of the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs. GAP National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack reading NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's statement to the Committee. Transcript I thank the European Parliament and the LIBE Committee for taking up the challenge of mass surveillance. The surveillance of whole populations, rather than individuals, threatens to be the greatest human rights challenge of our time. The success of economies in developed nations relies increasingly on their creative output, and if that success is to continue, we must remember that creativity is the product of curiosity, which in turn is the product of privacy. A culture of secrecy has denied our societies the opportunity to determine the appropriate balance between the human right of privacy and the governmental interest in investigation. These are not decisions that should be made for a people, but only by the people after full, informed, and fearless debate. Yet public debate is not possible without public knowledge, and in my country, the cost for one in my position of returning public knowledge to public hands has been persecution and exile. If we are to enjoy such debates in the future, we cannot rely upon individual sacrifice. We must create better channels for people of conscience to inform not only trusted agents of government, but independent representatives of the public outside of government. When I began my work, it was with the sole intention of making possible the debate we see occurring here in this body and in many other bodies around the world. Today we see legislative bodies forming new committees, calling for investigations, and proposing new solutions for modern problems. We see emboldened courts that are no longer afraid to consider critical questions of national security. We see brave executives remembering that if a public is prevented from knowing how they are being governed, the necessary result is that they are no longer self-governing. And we see the public reclaiming an equal seat at the table of government. The work of a generation is beginning here, with your hearings, and you have the full measure of my gratitude and support. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Oct 7 13:05:55 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:05:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Secretariat/Farzaneh RP Webinar Message-ID: Many of you may be interested: Hi everyone , a webinar will be held tomorrow about IGF 2013 and remote participation . You are all invited to join us and please invite others that might be interested to know more about remote participation. For information about the webinar and how to join us please go to http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation#IGFwebinar Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Mon Oct 7 16:15:04 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 20:15:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation Message-ID: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Oct 8 00:33:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 23:33:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Message-ID: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 8 01:51:26 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:51:26 +1100 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical community added " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a recognition that significant change must take place. Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. (there was also a statement re IPv6) I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of common ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial ways". That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on which we have substantial agreement. Ian Peter . -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism --srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 8 02:43:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:13:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> Dear Ian We should always work closely with all communities - and technical community is our engineers, we cant but work with them. However, I am not so convinced that the Montevideo statements means much, if anything at all..... We must place it in the context that, since the world is watching, it is practically impossible for the so called defenders of the Internet to say absolutely nothing about the NSA affairs which has so badly wrecked public confidence in the Internet worldwide. The statement must, therefore, be evaluated on the criterion of whether it went beyond that was needed to basically manage public perception and discontent.... (BTW, it is a pity that they shied away from mentioning NSA, or even the US, by name, a courtesy which I am sure wont be extended to another nation, seeing the extent of the crime.) You say that the part "in truly substantial ways" makes the statement as really serious.... I would take it to be that - really serious - if they had but mentioned one clear instance of what would be such a "truly substantial way". Even if it was perhaps not possible for all the current signatories to sign off on any "real proposal" right away, can anyone here who comes close to being one among many representatives of the technical community propose an example of any such "truly substantial" change that technical community is now willing to consider, post NSA/ Snowden. **Most importantly**, if indeed they really seek any "truly substantial" change/evolution of current mechanisms why did they not say so in their recent response to the questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which inter alia asks them this precise question. In fact the question on the needed "most appropriate mechanisms" has a specific sub question on technical management aspect of global IG. At least three of the signatories to the Montevedio statement send their responses to the questionnaire - ICANN, ARIN and LACNIC. There is no indication at all in their responses to the questionnaire that they seek any "truly substantial" evolution anywhere. Everything of the status quo appears to them pretty all right. In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this Montevideo statement as largely being merely for public consumption, while the views of the same organisations at places where such views really matter are rather different. BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 . Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the compilation. So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be even some more missing here. parminder On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement > released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards > criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical > community added > > " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and > evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to > address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." > > Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a > recognition that significant change must take place. > > Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were > > > * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet > operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national > level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust > and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of > pervasive monitoring and surveillance. > > *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet > Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts > towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > > *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA > functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including > all governments, participate on an equal footing. > > (there was also a statement re IPv6) > > I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of > common ground with the technical community now as regards some of the > big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a > recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly > substantial ways". > > That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in > current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with > the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I > hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which > legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do not > lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical community on > some over riding policy issues on which we have substantial agreement. > > > Ian Peter > > . > > > -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at > multistakeholderism". really? > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism > > > http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation > > > forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree > with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of > multistakeholderism > > --srs > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 8 03:10:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:40:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5253AFF2.2000104@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:13 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear Ian > > **Most importantly**, if indeed they really seek any "truly > substantial" change/evolution of current mechanisms why did they not > say so in their recent response to the questionnaire of the Working > Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which inter alia asks them this precise > question. In fact the question on the needed "most appropriate > mechanisms" has a specific sub question on technical management aspect > of global IG. At least three of the signatories to the Montevedio > statement send their responses to the questionnaire - ICANN, ARIN and > LACNIC. In fact four of them. I forgot to mention ISOC. > There is no indication at all in their responses to the questionnaire > that they seek any "truly substantial" evolution anywhere. Everything > of the status quo appears to them pretty all right. > > In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this > Montevideo statement as largely being merely for public consumption, > while the views of the same organisations at places where such views > really matter are rather different. > > BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 . > Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the > compilation. So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be even > some more missing here. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo >> statement released a little bit later from the technical community. >> As regards criticisms of current internet governance structures, the >> technical community added >> >> " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and >> evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to >> address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." >> >> Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a >> recognition that significant change must take place. >> >> Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were >> >> >> * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet >> operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national >> level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the >> trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent >> revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. >> >> *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet >> Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts >> towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. >> >> *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA >> functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, >> including all governments, participate on an equal footing. >> >> (there was also a statement re IPv6) >> >> I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of >> common ground with the technical community now as regards some of the >> big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a >> recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly >> substantial ways". >> >> That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in >> current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with >> the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I >> hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which >> legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do not >> lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical community on >> some over riding policy issues on which we have substantial agreement. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> . >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at >> multistakeholderism". really? >> >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism >> >> >> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation >> >> >> forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt >> agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of >> multistakeholderism >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Oct 8 03:21:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 12:51:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5253AFF2.2000104@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253AFF2.2000104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <14196f153a0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I still don't see why any organization at all is obligated to produce statements on demand, just because any other individual feels they should. Especially not when the 'feels they should' is couched in terms that doubt their credentials and essentially form a hostile cross examination. --srs (htc one x) On 8 October 2013 12:40:42 PM parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:13 PM, parminder wrote: > > Dear Ian > > > > **Most importantly**, if indeed they really seek any "truly substantial" > change/evolution of current mechanisms why did they not say so in their > recent response to the questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation, which inter alia asks them this precise question. In fact the > question on the needed "most appropriate mechanisms" has a specific sub > question on technical management aspect of global IG. At least three of the > signatories to the Montevedio statement send their responses to the > questionnaire - ICANN, ARIN and LACNIC. > In fact four of them. I forgot to mention ISOC. > > > There is no indication at all in their responses to the questionnaire > that they seek any "truly substantial" evolution anywhere. Everything of > the status quo appears to them pretty all right. > > > > In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this Montevideo > statement as largely being merely for public consumption, while the views > of the same organisations at places where such views really matter are > rather different. > > > > BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at > http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 . > Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the compilation. > So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be even some more missing here. > > > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement > released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards > criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical > community added > >> > >> " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and > evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address > emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." > >> > >> Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a > recognition that significant change must take place. > >> > >> Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were > >> > >> > >> * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet > operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. > They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and > confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of > pervasive monitoring and surveillance. > >> > >> *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet > Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts > towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > >> > >> *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA > functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all > governments, participate on an equal footing. > >> > >> (there was also a statement re IPv6) > >> > >> I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of > common ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big > priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a > recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial > ways". > >> > >> That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in current > structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical > community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our > discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our > thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work > closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on > which we have substantial agreement. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> . > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at > multistakeholderism". really? > >> > >> > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism > >> > >> > >> > http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation > >> > >> > >> forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree > with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of > multistakeholderism > >> > >> --srs > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 8 03:43:29 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:43:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5253AFF2.2000104@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253AFF2.2000104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F13B91627AB45FAAB89B5D73F9253E8@Toshiba> Parminder, “truly substantial” is not the sort of words you include if you are producing a motherhood statement to appease the masses. I suspect that at least some of those present can see that things are changing, and they must change as well to retain any legitimacy. I suspect that (just like us in civil society) there are some people now arguing forcibly for substantial change while others resist such moves. Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 6:10 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:13 PM, parminder wrote: Dear Ian *Most importantly*, if indeed they really seek any "truly substantial" change/evolution of current mechanisms why did they not say so in their recent response to the questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which inter alia asks them this precise question. In fact the question on the needed "most appropriate mechanisms" has a specific sub question on technical management aspect of global IG. At least three of the signatories to the Montevedio statement send their responses to the questionnaire - ICANN, ARIN and LACNIC. In fact four of them. I forgot to mention ISOC. There is no indication at all in their responses to the questionnaire that they seek any "truly substantial" evolution anywhere. Everything of the status quo appears to them pretty all right. In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this Montevideo statement as largely being merely for public consumption, while the views of the same organisations at places where such views really matter are rather different. BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 . Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the compilation. So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be even some more missing here. parminder On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical community added " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a recognition that significant change must take place. Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. (there was also a statement re IPv6) I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of common ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial ways". That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on which we have substantial agreement. Ian Peter . -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism --srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 8 03:55:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:25:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <4F13B91627AB45FAAB89B5D73F9253E8@Toshiba> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253AFF2.2000104@itforchange.net> <4F13B91627AB45FAAB89B5D73F9253E8@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5253BA79.5030606@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 01:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Parminder, “truly substantial” is not the sort of words you include if > you are producing a motherhood statement to appease the masses. I > suspect that at least some of those present can see that things are > changing, and they must change as well to retain any legitimacy. I > suspect that (just like us in civil society) there are some people now > arguing forcibly for substantial change while others resist such moves. Maybe. If you want me to wait, say six months, for a 'truly substantial' proposal for change to emerge from the the technical community, I can wait :). Ian, the problem is, there is a complete paralysis and denial from that side for a long long time now. WSIS for instance was 8 years ago. And Snowden is the not the first thing that has happened since to make people look critically at the status quo. parminder > Ian Peter > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 08, 2013 6:10 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] "technical community fails at > multistakeholderism". really? > On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:13 PM, parminder wrote: >> Dear Ian >> >> **Most importantly**, if indeed they really seek any "truly >> substantial" change/evolution of current mechanisms why did they not >> say so in their recent response to the questionnaire of the Working >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which inter alia asks them this >> precise question. In fact the question on the needed "most >> appropriate mechanisms" has a specific sub question on technical >> management aspect of global IG. At least three of the signatories to >> the Montevedio statement send their responses to the questionnaire - >> ICANN, ARIN and LACNIC. > > In fact four of them. I forgot to mention ISOC. > >> There is no indication at all in their responses to the questionnaire >> that they seek any "truly substantial" evolution anywhere. Everything >> of the status quo appears to them pretty all right. >> >> In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this >> Montevideo statement as largely being merely for public consumption, >> while the views of the same organisations at places where such views >> really matter are rather different. >> >> BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at >> http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 . >> Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the >> compilation. So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be even >> some more missing here. >> >> parminder >> >> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo >>> statement released a little bit later from the technical community. >>> As regards criticisms of current internet governance structures, the >>> technical community added >>> >>> " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and >>> evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to >>> address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." >>> >>> Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a >>> recognition that significant change must take place. >>> >>> Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were >>> >>> >>> * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet >>> operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national >>> level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the >>> trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent >>> revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. >>> >>> *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet >>> Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts >>> towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. >>> >>> *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA >>> functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, >>> including all governments, participate on an equal footing. >>> >>> (there was also a statement re IPv6) >>> >>> I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of >>> common ground with the technical community now as regards some of >>> the big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement >>> also a recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in >>> truly substantial ways". >>> >>> That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in >>> current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with >>> the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I >>> hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which >>> legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do >>> not lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical >>> community on some over riding policy issues on which we have >>> substantial agreement. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at >>> multistakeholderism". really? >>> >>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism >>> >>> >>> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation >>> >>> >>> forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt >>> agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of >>> multistakeholderism >>> >>> --srs >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Oct 8 04:42:30 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:42:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5253AFF2.2000104@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253AFF2.2000104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5253C576.1070007@apc.org> Dear Parminder Thanks for picking up that the APC submission is not included in the CSTD WG question compiliation. Also, the Best Bits submission, while there, is not noted as being from Best Bits, it just mentioned a few of the endorsing institutions. I will write to them. Anriette On 08/10/2013 09:10, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:13 PM, parminder wrote: >> Dear Ian >> >> **Most importantly**, if indeed they really seek any "truly >> substantial" change/evolution of current mechanisms why did they not >> say so in their recent response to the questionnaire of the Working >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which inter alia asks them this >> precise question. In fact the question on the needed "most >> appropriate mechanisms" has a specific sub question on technical >> management aspect of global IG. At least three of the signatories to >> the Montevedio statement send their responses to the questionnaire - >> ICANN, ARIN and LACNIC. > > In fact four of them. I forgot to mention ISOC. > >> There is no indication at all in their responses to the questionnaire >> that they seek any "truly substantial" evolution anywhere. Everything >> of the status quo appears to them pretty all right. >> >> In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this >> Montevideo statement as largely being merely for public consumption, >> while the views of the same organisations at places where such views >> really matter are rather different. >> >> BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at >> http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 . >> Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the >> compilation. So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be even >> some more missing here. >> >> parminder >> >> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo >>> statement released a little bit later from the technical community. >>> As regards criticisms of current internet governance structures, the >>> technical community added >>> >>> " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and >>> evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to >>> address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." >>> >>> Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a >>> recognition that significant change must take place. >>> >>> Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were >>> >>> >>> * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet >>> operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national >>> level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the >>> trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent >>> revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. >>> >>> *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet >>> Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts >>> towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. >>> >>> *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA >>> functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, >>> including all governments, participate on an equal footing. >>> >>> (there was also a statement re IPv6) >>> >>> I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of >>> common ground with the technical community now as regards some of >>> the big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement >>> also a recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in >>> truly substantial ways". >>> >>> That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in >>> current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with >>> the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I >>> hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which >>> legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do >>> not lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical >>> community on some over riding policy issues on which we have >>> substantial agreement. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at >>> multistakeholderism". really? >>> >>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism >>> >>> >>> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation >>> >>> >>> forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt >>> agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of >>> multistakeholderism >>> >>> --srs >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 8 04:56:31 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:56:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> Message-ID: <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> Hi John, I would like to understand the part "Internet fragmentation" when it's included in the same paragraph as the sentence about "monitoring and surveillance". Internet fragmentation is bad. Monitoring and surveillance is bad. Think that's clear. But, by including the two statements in the same paragraph, rather than as separate, are the organizations suggesting that recent proposals to build new infrastructure that avoids sending traffic via the U.S. and avoids U.S. monitoring and surveillance risks Internet fragmentation? Asking because that was the U.S. spin in response to proposals for such new infrastructure; FUD that new submarine cables would cause balkanization (which they would not of course). Thanks, Adam (FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in order to put a competitor at a disadvantage.) On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:15 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > FYI, > /John > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 05:22:33 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:22:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi Adam, I do not think the Montevideo declaration addresses the issue of new cables. One of the direct consequences of the NSA revelations is the growing call for "data sovereignty", ie the required in-country location of data about citizens of that country. While it seems to make sense at first glance, the cumulative result of every country adopting such a position will be the proliferation of mirror databases, national clouds and most likely incompatible national legislations. This is a potential death spell for global cross-border clouds, which is actually bad for developing countries as well. In that regard, the actions by the NSA are not only outrageous but potentially triggering unintended consequences that will be detrimental to the very development of the network as a global, trusted infrastructure. Hence the connection to fragmentation, I suppose. By contrast, the proliferation of additional submarine cables and Internet exchange points is actually a potential positive outcome of these revelations. Best B. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi John, > > I would like to understand the part "Internet fragmentation" when it's > included in the same paragraph as the sentence about "monitoring and > surveillance". > > Internet fragmentation is bad. Monitoring and surveillance is bad. Think > that's clear. > > But, by including the two statements in the same paragraph, rather than as > separate, are the organizations suggesting that recent proposals to build > new infrastructure that avoids sending traffic via the U.S. and avoids U.S. > monitoring and surveillance risks Internet fragmentation? > > Asking because that was the U.S. spin in response to proposals for such > new infrastructure; FUD that new submarine cables would cause balkanization > (which they would not of course). > > Thanks, > > Adam > > (FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in order > to put a competitor at a disadvantage.) > > > > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:15 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > < > http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation > > > > > > FYI, > > /John > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Oct 8 05:43:04 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:43:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:56 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > But, by including the two statements in the same paragraph, rather than as separate, are the organizations suggesting that recent proposals to build new infrastructure that avoids sending traffic via the U.S. and avoids U.S. monitoring and surveillance risks Internet fragmentation? No, that is not the intent. The plain reading that you noted ("Internet fragmentation is bad. Monitoring and surveillance is bad") is all that was intended. Note that several of the organizations involved (ISOC, the RIRs) actively promote development of local exchange points to improve network performance, and with the added benefit of avoiding traffic needlessly passing through other countries, and additional cables for capacity are similarly to be encouraged. FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 8 05:48:19 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:18:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5253D4E3.3090705@itforchange.net> Any kind of over-reliance on the idea of 'data sovereignty' is a real problem for the future of the Internet. But the only way it can be avoided is through a better, democratic governance of the Internet. The only option to save a global Internet is to have democratically arrived at global norms, principles, policy frameworks, policies and laws for the global Internet. One cant have it both ways - deny full and equal role to developing countries in global governance of the Internet, and also tell them that they should not, in default, take the required measures to defend themselves and their citizens. parminder On Tuesday 08 October 2013 02:52 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi Adam, > > I do not think the Montevideo declaration addresses the issue of new > cables. > > One of the direct consequences of the NSA revelations is the growing > call for "data sovereignty", ie the required in-country location of > data about citizens of that country. While it seems to make sense at > first glance, the cumulative result of every country adopting such a > position will be the proliferation of mirror databases, national > clouds and most likely incompatible national legislations. This is a > potential death spell for global cross-border clouds, which is > actually bad for developing countries as well. > > In that regard, the actions by the NSA are not only outrageous but > potentially triggering unintended consequences that will be > detrimental to the very development of the network as a global, > trusted infrastructure. Hence the connection to fragmentation, I suppose. > > By contrast, the proliferation of additional submarine cables and > Internet exchange points is actually a potential positive outcome of > these revelations. > > Best > > B. > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: > > Hi John, > > I would like to understand the part "Internet fragmentation" when > it's included in the same paragraph as the sentence about > "monitoring and surveillance". > > Internet fragmentation is bad. Monitoring and surveillance is > bad. Think that's clear. > > But, by including the two statements in the same paragraph, rather > than as separate, are the organizations suggesting that recent > proposals to build new infrastructure that avoids sending traffic > via the U.S. and avoids U.S. monitoring and surveillance risks > Internet fragmentation? > > Asking because that was the U.S. spin in response to proposals for > such new infrastructure; FUD that new submarine cables would cause > balkanization (which they would not of course). > > Thanks, > > Adam > > (FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in > order to put a competitor at a disadvantage.) > > > > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:15 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > > > > > > FYI, > > /John > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic > Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net > ) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 8 05:48:27 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:48:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <6132C4F7-CA4A-486C-8003-874A81C47226@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Bertrand, Thanks. On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi Adam, > > I do not think the Montevideo declaration addresses the issue of new cables. > > One of the direct consequences of the NSA revelations is the growing call for "data sovereignty", ie the required in-country location of data about citizens of that country. I'd wondered about that: I don't know if you saw the email I sent to the list a few days ago referring to Caspar Bowden's work on FISA/PRISM, protecting privacy in the cloud, mainly for the European Parliament?) I was asking, mainly because I am actually hoping the statement was not referring to the new cables and balkanization :-) Best, Adam > While it seems to make sense at first glance, the cumulative result of every country adopting such a position will be the proliferation of mirror databases, national clouds and most likely incompatible national legislations. This is a potential death spell for global cross-border clouds, which is actually bad for developing countries as well. > > In that regard, the actions by the NSA are not only outrageous but potentially triggering unintended consequences that will be detrimental to the very development of the network as a global, trusted infrastructure. Hence the connection to fragmentation, I suppose. > > By contrast, the proliferation of additional submarine cables and Internet exchange points is actually a potential positive outcome of these revelations. > > Best > > B. > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi John, > > I would like to understand the part "Internet fragmentation" when it's included in the same paragraph as the sentence about "monitoring and surveillance". > > Internet fragmentation is bad. Monitoring and surveillance is bad. Think that's clear. > > But, by including the two statements in the same paragraph, rather than as separate, are the organizations suggesting that recent proposals to build new infrastructure that avoids sending traffic via the U.S. and avoids U.S. monitoring and surveillance risks Internet fragmentation? > > Asking because that was the U.S. spin in response to proposals for such new infrastructure; FUD that new submarine cables would cause balkanization (which they would not of course). > > Thanks, > > Adam > > (FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in order to put a competitor at a disadvantage.) > > > > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:15 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > > > > > FYI, > > /John > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 8 05:49:13 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:49:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: John, thank you. Very good to know. Adam On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:43 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:56 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> But, by including the two statements in the same paragraph, rather than as separate, are the organizations suggesting that recent proposals to build new infrastructure that avoids sending traffic via the U.S. and avoids U.S. monitoring and surveillance risks Internet fragmentation? > > No, that is not the intent. The plain reading that you noted ("Internet > fragmentation is bad. Monitoring and surveillance is bad") is all that > was intended. > > Note that several of the organizations involved (ISOC, the RIRs) actively > promote development of local exchange points to improve network performance, > and with the added benefit of avoiding traffic needlessly passing through > other countries, and additional cables for capacity are similarly to be > encouraged. > > FYI, > /John > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 05:56:04 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:56:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Alliance for Affordable Internet Message-ID: My apologies if this came by already, but I just learned about it through another list I belong to. http://a4ai.org/category/policy-research/a4airesearch-policy/ Deirdre -- “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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 8 06:15:05 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 19:15:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <0E851B0C-6AD6-4234-BD3C-0917C08853B4@glocom.ac.jp> Following text I think of interest to the data sovereignty issue. This article was deleted from a first draft of the European data protection directive, if included it might provide some protection against NSA etc? There would be an economic cost to not non-compliance, which seems the only likely deterrent. Oddly enough, heavy U.S. lobbying was behind deletion. I am not at all expert on privacy etc. but hope of interest/relevance. Adam Article 42 Disclosures not authorized by Union law 1. No judgment of a court or tribunal and no decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a controller or processor to disclose personal data shall be recognized or be enforceable in any manner, without prejudice to a mutual assistance treaty or an international agreement in force between the requesting third country and the Union or a Member State. 2. Where a judgment of a court or tribunal or a decision of an administrative authority of a third country requests a controller or processor to disclose personal data, the controller or processor and, if any, the controller's representative, shall notify the supervisory authority of the request without undue delay and must obtain prior authorisation for the transfer by the supervisory authority in accordance with point (b) of Article 31(1). 3. The supervisory authority shall assess the compliance of the requested disclosure with the Regulation and in particular whether the disclosure is necessary and legally required in accordance with points (d) and (e) of paragraph of Article 41. 4. The supervisory authority shall inform the competent national authority of the request. The controller or processor shall also inform the data subject of the request and of the authorisation by the supervisory authority. 5. The Commission may lay down the standard format of the notifications to the supervisory authority referred to in paragraph 2 and the information of the data subject referred to in paragraph 4 as well as the procedures applicable to the notification and information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 87(2). Article 37 General principles for transfers Any transfer of personal data which are undergoing processing or are intended for processing after transfer to a third country or to an international organisation may only take place if: (a) the level of protection of individuals for the protection of personal data guaranteed in the Union by this Regulation is not undermined; (b) the conditions laid down in this Chapter are complied with by the controller and processor, including for onward transfers of personal data from the third country or an international organisation to another third country or to another international organisation; and (c) the other provisions of this Regulation are complied with by the controller and processor. END On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi Adam, > > I do not think the Montevideo declaration addresses the issue of new cables. > > One of the direct consequences of the NSA revelations is the growing call for "data sovereignty", ie the required in-country location of data about citizens of that country. While it seems to make sense at first glance, the cumulative result of every country adopting such a position will be the proliferation of mirror databases, national clouds and most likely incompatible national legislations. This is a potential death spell for global cross-border clouds, which is actually bad for developing countries as well. > > In that regard, the actions by the NSA are not only outrageous but potentially triggering unintended consequences that will be detrimental to the very development of the network as a global, trusted infrastructure. Hence the connection to fragmentation, I suppose. > > By contrast, the proliferation of additional submarine cables and Internet exchange points is actually a potential positive outcome of these revelations. > > Best > > B. > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi John, > > I would like to understand the part "Internet fragmentation" when it's included in the same paragraph as the sentence about "monitoring and surveillance". > > Internet fragmentation is bad. Monitoring and surveillance is bad. Think that's clear. > > But, by including the two statements in the same paragraph, rather than as separate, are the organizations suggesting that recent proposals to build new infrastructure that avoids sending traffic via the U.S. and avoids U.S. monitoring and surveillance risks Internet fragmentation? > > Asking because that was the U.S. spin in response to proposals for such new infrastructure; FUD that new submarine cables would cause balkanization (which they would not of course). > > Thanks, > > Adam > > (FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in order to put a competitor at a disadvantage.) > > > > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:15 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > > > > > FYI, > > /John > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 8 07:19:23 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 04:19:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:43 PM, parminder wrote: > You say that the part "in truly substantial ways" makes the statement as really serious.... I would take it to be that - really serious - if they had but mentioned one clear instance of what would be such a "truly substantial way". You would not consider the "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing" to be truly substantial? > Even if it was perhaps not possible for all the current signatories to sign off on any "real proposal" right away, can anyone here who comes close to being one among many representatives of the technical community propose an example of any such "truly substantial" change that technical community is now willing to consider, post NSA/ Snowden. How can there be a proposal of "what should be next" without first having discussions of same? Your faith in "a real proposal" from the Montevideo signatories is appreciated, but discussions so that "all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing" is exactly the type of discussion going on globally in places such as the IGF, and there is no clear or even emergent consensus yet that I can discern... /John Disclaimer: My views alone. No new Internet Governance structures are created via this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 8 08:30:53 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:00:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 04:49 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:43 PM, parminder > wrote: > snip > You would not consider the "accelerating the globalization of ICANN > and IANA functions, > towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all > governments, participate > on an equal footing" to be truly substantial? I may, if I am given some concrete indication what does that 'environment' looks like. > >> Even if it was perhaps not possible for all the current signatories >> to sign off on any "real proposal" right away, can anyone here who >> comes close to being one among many representatives of the technical >> community propose an example of any such "truly substantial" change >> that technical community is now willing to consider, post NSA/ Snowden. > > How can there be a proposal of "what should be next" without first > having discussions > of same? The discussion started at least in 2004 with the WGIG, and now it is 2013...... People have been discussing all along. What is time period/ limit of discussions? > Your faith in "a real proposal" from the Montevideo signatories > is appreciated, > but discussions so that "all stakeholders, including all > governments, participate on an > equal footing" is exactly the type of discussion going on globally in > places such as the > IGF, and there is no clear or even emergent consensus yet that I can > discern... The plain fact is that in a socio political space no change takes place if we wait for every every entity to agree completely. So we can wait eternally for the full consensus to emerge and the status quo can meanwhile be. Public interest actors can still agree - as they do often in terms of global treaties etc - because of some genuine give and take involved, and at other times a leap of collective faith in global public interest.... But when some private interest actors - who by definition look at narrow, relatively short term interest - are also prominently lined up as essential parties to the sought for consensus, that is a pretty impossible task. A good recipe however to keep the status quo going. parminder > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. No new Internet Governance structures > are created via > this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 8 08:43:39 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:13:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5253FDFB.8030408@itforchange.net> Also, John, your response misses the main point of my initial posting that if indeed your organisation and others do seek "truly substantive" evolution/change, why would you also not say so in response to the WGEC questionaire which directly asks the relevant question. Why does the responses to WGEC of all signatories to the Montevideo declaration clearly look like that they seek *no* " truly substantive" evolution/change? parminder On Tuesday 08 October 2013 04:49 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:43 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> You say that the part "in truly substantial ways" makes the statement >> as really serious.... I would take it to be that - really serious - >> if they had but mentioned one clear instance of what would be such a >> "truly substantial way". > > You would not consider the "accelerating the globalization of ICANN > and IANA functions, > towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all > governments, participate > on an equal footing" to be truly substantial? > >> Even if it was perhaps not possible for all the current signatories >> to sign off on any "real proposal" right away, can anyone here who >> comes close to being one among many representatives of the technical >> community propose an example of any such "truly substantial" change >> that technical community is now willing to consider, post NSA/ Snowden. > > How can there be a proposal of "what should be next" without first > having discussions > of same? Your faith in "a real proposal" from the Montevideo > signatories is appreciated, > but discussions so that "all stakeholders, including all > governments, participate on an > equal footing" is exactly the type of discussion going on globally in > places such as the > IGF, and there is no clear or even emergent consensus yet that I can > discern... > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. No new Internet Governance structures > are created via > this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Oct 8 09:12:17 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:12:17 -0300 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Message-ID: Nupef from BR alto endorsed APC's and Bestbits' responses and is not listed. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Date: 08-10-2013 05:42 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Dear Parminder Thanks for picking up that the APC submission is not included in the CSTD WG question compiliation. Also, the Best Bits submission, while there, is not noted as being from Best Bits, it just mentioned a few of the endorsing institutions. I will write to them. Anriette On 08/10/2013 09:10, parminder wrote: On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:13 PM, parminder wrote: Dear Ian *Most importantly*, if indeed they really seek any "truly substantial" change/evolution of current mechanisms why did they not say so in their recent response to the questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which inter alia asks them this precise question. In fact the question on the needed "most appropriate mechanisms" has a specific sub question on technical management aspect of global IG. At least three of the signatories to the Montevedio statement send their responses to the questionnaire - ICANN, ARIN and LACNIC. In fact four of them. I forgot to mention ISOC. There is no indication at all in their responses to the questionnaire that they seek any "truly substantial" evolution anywhere. Everything of the status quo appears to them pretty all right. In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this Montevideo statement as largely being merely for public consumption, while the views of the same organisations at places where such views really matter are rather different. BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 . Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the compilation. So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be even some more missing here. parminder On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical community added " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a recognition that significant change must take place. Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. (there was also a statement re IPv6) I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of common ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial ways". That's good news!  There are things that should be criticised in current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on which we have substantial agreement. Ian Peter . -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism --srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 09:19:41 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:19:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, parminder wrote: > > > The discussion started at least in 2004 with the WGIG, and now it is > 2013...... People have been discussing all along. What is time period/ limit > of discussions? In addition to discussions, there have been real "substantial" concrete changes. For example, instead of an MoU with the USG, ICANN now has the AoC. In addition, there are many other MoU's signed with gov and intergov orgs: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/partnership-mous The biggest change is that now due to changes in ICANN bylaws, the GAC has effective "control" over what goes in the root. Ask the folks who applied for .gcc or .patagonia if you don't believe me! -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 09:21:18 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:21:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] New paper on surveillance and the digital divide References: <525402F5.6060208@opentechinstitute.org> Message-ID: <9C281BD2-E30F-49EF-B9D8-5D475CEFA03E@gmail.com> Sorry for cross posting, but this may be of interest in folks on this different lists. Begin forwarded message: > From: Seeta Peña Gangadharan > Date: October 8, 2013 at 10:04:53 AM GMT-3 > > Hey all, > > I recently published my new paper "Joining the surveillance society?" > > Please have a read and share widely! > > http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/joining_the_surveillance_society > > https://twitter.com/OTI/status/387232626928394240 > > Thanks, > Seeta > > - -- > Seeta Peña Gangadharan, PhD > Senior Research Fellow, Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > 1899 L St., NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20036 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Oct 8 09:19:37 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:19:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Message-ID: This sentence is ambiguous: "They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring  and surveillance." It seems the "leaders" are more concerned by the revelations of surveillance than by surveillance itself. --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Ian Peter Date: 08-10-2013 02:51 (GMT-03:00) To: Suresh Ramasubramanian ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical community added " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a recognition that significant change must take place. Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. (there was also a statement re IPv6) I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of common ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial ways". That's good news!  There are things that should be criticised in current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on which we have substantial agreement. Ian Peter . -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism --srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 8 09:28:39 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:58:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52540887.7020207@itforchange.net> Apart from redoing the question-wise compilation properly, i also asked Peter Major to in any case also separately provide complete responses of every responding entity, because often they make good sense to read as complete submissions. Peter has not responded to my suggestion. Maybe you and Joy can also add your voice... parminder On Tuesday 08 October 2013 06:42 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Nupef from BR alto endorsed APC's and Bestbits' responses and is not > listed. > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Date: 08-10-2013 05:42 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at > multistakeholderism". really? > > > Dear Parminder > > Thanks for picking up that the APC submission is not included in the > CSTD WG question compiliation. > Also, the Best Bits submission, while there, is not noted as being > from Best Bits, it just mentioned a few of the endorsing institutions. > > I will write to them. > > Anriette > > > On 08/10/2013 09:10, parminder wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 12:13 PM, parminder wrote: >>> Dear Ian >>> >>> **Most importantly**, if indeed they really seek any "truly >>> substantial" change/evolution of current mechanisms why did they not >>> say so in their recent response to the questionnaire of the Working >>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which inter alia asks them this >>> precise question. In fact the question on the needed "most >>> appropriate mechanisms" has a specific sub question on technical >>> management aspect of global IG. At least three of the signatories to >>> the Montevedio statement send their responses to the questionnaire - >>> ICANN, ARIN and LACNIC. >> >> In fact four of them. I forgot to mention ISOC. >> >>> There is no indication at all in their responses to the >>> questionnaire that they seek any "truly substantial" evolution >>> anywhere. Everything of the status quo appears to them pretty all right. >>> >>> In the circumstances, would one be amiss is considering this >>> Montevideo statement as largely being merely for public consumption, >>> while the views of the same organisations at places where such views >>> really matter are rather different. >>> >>> BTW, responses to WGEC questionaire can be seen at >>> http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 . >>> Incidentally, IT for Change's responses are missing from the >>> compilation. So also I think APC's, and therefore there may be even >>> some more missing here. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 11:21 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo >>>> statement released a little bit later from the technical community. >>>> As regards criticisms of current internet governance structures, >>>> the technical community added >>>> >>>> " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen >>>> and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able >>>> to address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." >>>> >>>> Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but >>>> a recognition that significant change must take place. >>>> >>>> Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were >>>> >>>> >>>> * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet >>>> operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national >>>> level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the >>>> trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent >>>> revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. >>>> >>>> *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet >>>> Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide >>>> efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet >>>> cooperation. >>>> >>>> *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA >>>> functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, >>>> including all governments, participate on an equal footing. >>>> >>>> (there was also a statement re IPv6) >>>> >>>> I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot >>>> of common ground with the technical community now as regards some >>>> of the big priorities that must be addressed, and from this >>>> statement also a recognition that they must improve current >>>> mechanisms "in truly substantial ways". >>>> >>>> That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in >>>> current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with >>>> the technical community to address some major points of agreement. >>>> I hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which >>>> legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do >>>> not lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical >>>> community on some over riding policy issues on which we have >>>> substantial agreement. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at >>>> multistakeholderism". really? >>>> >>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation >>>> >>>> >>>> forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt >>>> agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of >>>> multistakeholderism >>>> >>>> --srs >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 8 09:41:38 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:41:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Carlos, On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > This sentence is ambiguous: "They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring > and surveillance." > > It seems the "leaders" are more concerned by the revelations of surveillance than by surveillance itself. > Jari Arkko, IETF chair replied to something similar on the IETF discuss list: > > From: Jari Arkko > To: Stephane Bortzmeyer > Cc: ietf at ietf.org > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 02:05:09 +0300 > > > > This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that > > undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer > > something like, to avoid shooting the messenger: > > Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privacy causes concern, not the revelations. > > Jari > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82863.html Adam > --c.a. > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ian Peter > Date: 08-10-2013 02:51 (GMT-03:00) > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? > > > Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement > released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards > criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical > community added > > " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve > these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging > issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." > > Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a > recognition that significant change must take place. > > Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were > > > * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, > and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They > expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of > Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring > and surveillance. > > *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the > evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > > *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, > towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, > participate on an equal footing. > > (there was also a statement re IPv6) > > I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of common > ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big > priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a > recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial > ways". > > That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in current > structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical > community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our > discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our > thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work > closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on > which we have substantial agreement. > > > Ian Peter > > . > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". > really? > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism > > http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation > > forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with > emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism > > --srs > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue Oct 8 09:50:07 2013 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:50:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Message-ID: And it was another chance for them to push ipv6. The sine qua non of any tech community statement. I find it a very disappointing statement, more consensus boilerplate than substantive contribution. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: 10/08/2013 09:19 (GMT-05:00) To: Ian Peter ,Suresh Ramasubramanian ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? This sentence is ambiguous: "They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring  and surveillance." It seems the "leaders" are more concerned by the revelations of surveillance than by surveillance itself. --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Ian Peter Date: 08-10-2013 02:51 (GMT-03:00) To: Suresh Ramasubramanian ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical community added " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a recognition that significant change must take place. Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. (there was also a statement re IPv6) I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of common ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial ways". That's good news!  There are things that should be criticised in current structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on which we have substantial agreement. Ian Peter . -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism --srs ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Oct 8 09:54:55 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:54:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:30 AM, parminder > wrote: On Tuesday 08 October 2013 04:49 PM, John Curran wrote: On Oct 7, 2013, at 11:43 PM, parminder > wrote: snip You would not consider the "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing" to be truly substantial? I may, if I am given some concrete indication what does that 'environment' looks like. The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of ICANN and IANA a would call a truly substantial development. Regarding that "environment", I was hoping you'd tell me... what would you like to look like? For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"... how would one globalize the 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the USG/NTIA? The plain fact is that in a socio political space no change takes place if we wait for every every entity to agree completely. So we can wait eternally for the full consensus to emerge and the status quo can meanwhile be. Public interest actors can still agree - as they do often in terms of global treaties etc - because of some genuine give and take involved, and at other times a leap of collective faith in global public interest....But when some private interest actors - who by definition look at narrow, relatively short term interest - are also prominently lined up as essential parties to the sought for consensus, that is a pretty impossible task. A good recipe however to keep the status quo going. There's no reason for the organizations involved to issue a statement if they desired maintenance of the status quo, and furthermore would definitely not call for globalization of the ICANN and IANA functions, since that aspect alone is likely to precipitate some significant change... FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Oct 8 10:20:36 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:20:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2013, at 6:50 AM, avri doria wrote: > And it was another chance for them to push ipv6. The sine qua non of any tech community statement. Avri - You can blame me for that - we've got a problem with transition to IPv6 which is likely beyond the ability of the technical community to solve... Simply put, we can't use just IPv6 to connect new customers/sites/users to the Internet until the vast majority of content is reachable via IPv6. It is only once the vast majority of content is reachable via IP6 that it becomes a truly viable substitute for IPv4. So Google, facebook, youtube, msn, etc. have all added IPv6 to their public websites, as well as many public sector and private organizations. In fact, we're at the point were even though only 2% of websites are enabled with IPv6, they are such significant sites that for many users, more than 50% of their traffic might be IPv6 today if they have a IPv4/IPv6 connection... (There are now broadband providers turning both up when connecting new customers) So, we need to remind folks that websites not connected with both IPv4 and IPv6 are not fully connected. At some point, we may even need to seek the aid of governments to assist with the transition, as the consequences of not getting to IPv6 are severe. Note that the statement was not "use IPv6" or "connect new customers with IPv6", it was specifically that "Internet content providers must serve content with both IPv4 and IPv6 services" If you have a website which is not served with IPv6 in addition to IPv4, then it is important (for the sake of the Internet) that you get that fixed as soon as possible. Thanks, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Oct 8 10:28:14 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:28:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5253FDFB.8030408@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FDFB.8030408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:43 AM, parminder > wrote: Also, John, your response misses the main point of my initial posting that if indeed your organisation and others do seek "truly substantive" evolution/change, why would you also not say so in response to the WGEC questionaire which directly asks the relevant question. Paraminder - Which WGEC question number do you believe "directly asks the relevant question" ? Thanks! /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raul at lacnic.net Tue Oct 8 10:30:10 2013 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 12:30:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: El 08/10/2013, a las 11:19, Carlos A. Afonso escribió: > This sentence is ambiguous: "They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring > and surveillance." > > It seems the "leaders" are more concerned by the revelations of surveillance than by surveillance itself. Carlos Maybe it is not the best wording, but I guess that it is very clear that what is a matter of concern is the surveillance and its impact in the trust and confidence, not the revelations. Raúl > > --c.a. > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ian Peter > Date: 08-10-2013 02:51 (GMT-03:00) > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? > > > Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement > released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards > criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical > community added > > " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve > these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging > issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." > > Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a > recognition that significant change must take place. > > Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were > > > * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, > and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They > expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of > Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring > and surveillance. > > *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the > evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > > *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, > towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, > participate on an equal footing. > > (there was also a statement re IPv6) > > I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of common > ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big > priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a > recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial > ways". > > That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in current > structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical > community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our > discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our > thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work > closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on > which we have substantial agreement. > > > Ian Peter > > . > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". > really? > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism > > http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation > > forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with > emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism > > --srs > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Oct 8 10:36:58 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 11:36:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Message-ID: <49fs2wfb6t7al70ha8yn5t5v.1381242795316@email.android.com> If they meant that, why not say it so? Dilma was far more courageous... ;) --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Adam Peake Date: 08-10-2013 10:41 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Ian Peter ,Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Hi Carlos, On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > This sentence is ambiguous: "They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring > and surveillance." > > It seems the "leaders" are more concerned by the revelations of surveillance than by surveillance itself. > Jari Arkko, IETF chair replied to something similar on the IETF discuss list: > > From: Jari Arkko > To: Stephane Bortzmeyer > Cc: ietf at ietf.org > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 02:05:09 +0300 > > > > This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that > > undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer > > something like, to avoid shooting the messenger: > > Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privacy causes concern, not the revelations. > > Jari > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82863.html Adam > --c.a. > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ian Peter > Date: 08-10-2013 02:51 (GMT-03:00) > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? > > > Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement > released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards > criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical > community added > > " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve > these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging > issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." > > Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a > recognition that significant change must take place. > > Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were > > > * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, > and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They > expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of > Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring > and surveillance. > > *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the > evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > > *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, > towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, > participate on an equal footing. > > (there was also a statement re IPv6) > > I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of common > ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big > priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a > recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial > ways". > > That's good news!  There are things that should be criticised in current > structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical > community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our > discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our > thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work > closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on > which we have substantial agreement. > > > Ian Peter > > . > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". > really? > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism > > http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation > > forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with > emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism > > --srs > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Oct 8 10:51:31 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:51:31 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133206A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: The plain fact is that in a socio political space no change takes place if we wait for every every entity to agree completely. So we can wait eternally for the full consensus to emerge and the status quo can meanwhile be. Public interest actors can still agree - as they do often in terms of global treaties etc - because of some genuine give and take involved, and at other times a leap of collective faith in global public interest....But when some private interest actors - who by definition look at narrow, relatively short term interest - are also prominently lined up as essential parties to the sought for consensus, that is a pretty impossible task. A good recipe however to keep the status quo going. Wolfgang: This is not true. 2013 looks very different from 2005. Did you look, just to take one example from the ICANN story, into the ATRT and the other AoC Review Processes? This is far away from the Status quo we had 2005 or even 2009. This multistakeholder oversight mechanism (with a Chinese Vice Minister as a member in the ATRT team) is still in its infant stage and needs a lot of enhancement and improvement, but it is the right way forward to allow governmental and non-governmental stakeholders - on an equal footing - to keep ICANN acountable to the global community and in line with public policy needs. The situation is far from perfect and it needs more improvements (as the indicated globalization of ICANN and IANA functions). But once again, 2013 is very different from 2005. And I expect that 2020 will be very different from 2013. And for the broader IG Ecosystem: In 2005 or 2009 we had not such a discussion on IG principles as we have today. Now we have not so many projects (including proposals by IBSA, OECD, OSCE, CoE, Shanghai, London, GNI, APC, I* and others). What I would be interested is how we could go beyond this one-stakeholder and regional statements of IG principles an globalize and multistakholderise the debate on IG principles. The Brazilian president pushed this discusison another step forward and we should use (in Bali) this window of opportunity to kick start a process towards a multistakeholoder "Framework of Commitments" on IG principles where all governmental and all non-governmental stakeholders are participate on an equal footing. We need to be creative and have to "invent innovations" in global policy making. Just to send complicated and controversial issues back to a UN Committee (or the G 20) won´t work. You can not settle 21st century problems with the instruments of the 19th or 20th century. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 8 11:21:34 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:21:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <49fs2wfb6t7al70ha8yn5t5v.1381242795316@email.android.com> References: <49fs2wfb6t7al70ha8yn5t5v.1381242795316@email.android.com> Message-ID: <59BD17CC-ACCC-4F8D-BAE7-830014D2236D@istaff.org> On Oct 8, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > If they meant that, why not say it so? Well, so far you've heard myself, Raul, and Jari indicate it could have been phrased better (statements developed by multiple organizations sometimes suffer in the editing.) > Dilma was far more courageous... ;) Really? By calling for _multilateral_ framework for governance and use of the Internet? Isn't that fairly routine position for governments to take? "The history of the twentieth century shows that forsaking multilateralism is a prelude to wars and the consequent human misery and devastation." (Dilma Rousseff - 24 Sept 2013) I'm not certain that advocating for the centuries-old model of "governments dealing with other governments" for the resolution of problems is exactly a bold and courageous approach. (I'd really like to believe that she meant multistakeholder, but the seven uses of the word "multilateral" plus the above quote do make that a little difficult...) We desperately need an updated model for Internet collaboration which provides for government participation, while at the same time protecting the voices of civil society and the private/technical/business sector. This is not easy - we know that private sector alone doesn't necessarily lead to full consideration of public policy issues; we know that government and private sector can actually be worse in that aspect. Governments talking to governments (multi-lateral) also is problematic, although we have begun to see tangible progress with multi-stakeholder involvement in some of these institutions following the Internet community lead. The question before us is whether we can maintain the openness and participatory governance aspects of present Internet coordination (although to date private sector-led) as governments become more involved, all while formalizing structures for civil society participation. We have some advantages, as the Internet itself provides collaboration tools that previously did not exist (remote participation, collaborating editing/wikis, distributed polling, etc.) but we're still entering uncharted territory and there is enormous pressure to get this right. /John Disclaimers: My own views. Yes, this is hard, that's why its called "work". -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 11:41:34 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:41:34 -0700 Subject: Additonal issues RE: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation Message-ID: <073001cec43c$de538360$9afa8a20$@gmail.com> John, I have two (but related) additional issues with the Montevideo document The first is the uncritical acceptance of the notion ("reality") of what is termed "multistakeholder cooperation".. Given the degree to which that term/concept as yet remains ill-defined, non-formalized, contested, ambiguous etc. etc. to use it in this way without for example, having an addiitonal point recommending some degree of more formally framing/anchoring the notion raises significant questions concerning the rest of the statement. If "MS cooperation" is to the active agent for resolving issues and we don't have a clear and broadly agreed to notion of what we mean by MS cooperation then we really have little at all. Associated with this is the failure to recognize the significance of the NSA's subversion of the IETF process. If the NSA chose to subvert that "MS" process in the interests of their broad goal of (according to General Alexander) "Information dominance", then what other MS process might they have or have not subverted in pursuit of the same goal and on what basis can we trust or rely on any other MS processes in their current form going forward. In the absence of more "formalized" MS processes which include transparency, accountablity and (similarly transparent and accountable processes of) legitimation it seems, shall we say a wee bit "hopeful" to be relying on these processes to be themselves ways of resolving these self-same issues. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:15 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 8 11:43:52 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 21:13:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> Message-ID: <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:24 PM, John Curran wrote: > snip. > > The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of > ICANN and IANA > a would call a truly substantial development. Can you please point to where such a proposal/ call exists... Is there agreement on making ICANN an international organisation incorporated under international law and not US law, and free from all kinds of US jurisdiction, and in a host country agreement with the US government and so on.... That is what globalisation or internationalisation means..... I happy to support any such proposal from the technical community, and this can be basis of some real change. Opening a new office in Africa or China or India is not globalisation - even US has embassies in all these place, because of which US cannot be called as having been globalised or internationalised. > Regarding that "environment", I was > hoping you'd tell me... what would you like to look like? We have always been very forthcoming to present what we think it would look like (although always open to further comments and changes). For instance, see this recent statement to the WGEC by 46 organisations including ours, http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/Statement_on_democratizing_Internet_governance_0.pdf . Happy to hear your comments on this. > > For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"... how would one > globalize the > 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the > USG/NTIA? See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes over this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind of US jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to globalise/ internationalise something ? parminder > >> The plain fact is that in a socio political space no change takes >> place if we wait for every every entity to agree completely. So we >> can wait eternally for the full consensus to emerge and the status >> quo can meanwhile be. Public interest actors can still agree - as >> they do often in terms of global treaties etc - because of some >> genuine give and take involved, and at other times a leap of >> collective faith in global public interest....But when some private >> interest actors - who by definition look at narrow, relatively short >> term interest - are also prominently lined up as essential parties >> to the sought for consensus, that is a pretty impossible task. A good >> recipe however to keep the status quo going. > > There's no reason for the organizations involved to issue a statement > if they desired > maintenance of the status quo, and furthermore would definitely not > call for globalization > of the ICANN and IANA functions, since that aspect alone is likely to > precipitate some > significant change... > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 8 11:50:21 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:50:21 -0700 Subject: Additonal issues RE: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: <073001cec43c$de538360$9afa8a20$@gmail.com> References: <073001cec43c$de538360$9afa8a20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I have two (but related) additional issues with the Montevideo document > > The first is the uncritical acceptance of the notion ("reality") of what is > termed "multistakeholder cooperation".. Given the degree to which that > term/concept as yet remains ill-defined, non-formalized, contested, > ambiguous etc. etc. to use it in this way without for example, having an > addiitonal point recommending some degree of more formally framing/anchoring > the notion raises significant questions concerning the rest of the > statement. If "MS cooperation" is to the active agent for resolving issues > and we don't have a clear and broadly agreed to notion of what we mean by MS > cooperation then we really have little at all. Agreed. In fact, while I think that multistakeholder cooperation (meaning the ability of all parties to participate in an open and transparent manner) has worked very well for technical standards and related registry policy, it is not apparent that it suffices (at least unchanged) as we begin to look at the next stage of Internet cooperation. > Associated with this is the failure to recognize the significance of the > NSA's subversion of the IETF process. If the NSA chose to subvert that "MS" > process in the interests of their broad goal of (according to General > Alexander) "Information dominance", then what other MS process might they > have or have not subverted in pursuit of the same goal and on what basis can > we trust or rely on any other MS processes in their current form going > forward. Also agreed. We can hope that awareness of these incidents can help with awareness to detecting future attempts, but that does not address any other past occurrences now latent in our processes. Excellent points both - Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone (unless the result of manipulation undetected ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 8 11:57:00 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 21:27:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FDFB.8030408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52542B4C.9080304@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:58 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:43 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> Also, John, your response misses the main point of my initial posting >> that if indeed your organisation and others do seek "truly >> substantive" evolution/change, why would you also not say so in >> response to the WGEC questionaire which directly asks the relevant >> question. > > Paraminder - > Which WGEC question number do you believe "directly asks the > relevant question" ? John Question number 8 -"What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, *including* on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and*public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources*? *(emphasis added)" *The question clearly seeks response as to what changes/ evolution the respondent wants to see in global IG mechanism, including in that part dealing with coordination and management of critical Internet resources. Why did ARIN and others not say in their response that they would like to see "truly substantial" evolution/ change in these mechanisms as they exist today, as the Montevideo statement seem to indicate. For convenience of others here, I quote as below the response that ARIN gave to the above question in their response to WGEC. (Similar responses were given by other signatories of the Montevideo statement) "Since their inception, many of the organizations associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet number resources have employed various media such as open mailing lists, websites and open face-to-face meetings, to reach those with an interest in these topics. Additionally, the IGFs on all levels, national, regional and global, have been instrumental in encouraging interaction between the stakeholders. The increase in communications and outreach has resulted in a better understanding of the issues for all involved stakeholders." Does it sound like ARIN seeks "truly substantive" evolution/ change anywhere at all? Not to me. parminder ** > ** > > Thanks! > /John > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg Tue Oct 8 11:59:15 2013 From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:59:15 +0800 Subject: Additonal issues RE: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I just sent off the following email to the ISOC mailing list because I read the item there first. It's a paper I did at the GigaNet meeting at the IGF in Lithuania. If I may be so bold to share an article otherwise likely to be read only by my co-author and our respective mothers . . . . I did an academic paper investigating this question: how far can "Internet cooperation" go? Is the goal/ideal (world peace, Internet-as-a-happy-family) we all seem to be aiming for realistic? It's to be published in Revue française d'études américaines in English. The paper was presented at the IGF in Lithuania. It's available at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8p9HJg2cUQ2a3dKdEg0MnljWDg/edit?usp=sharing and is especially helpful for those suffering from insomnia. The paper has two parts. The first part uses a theory from Dani Rodrik, political scientist at Harvard, and he shows that there is trilemma in international cooperation. You have globalization, democracy and national sovereignty as competing interests. You can only have two out of the three. My paper concludes that governments will not give up on democracy and national sovereignty and so of the "trilemma", globalization will give. No entirely but what I call "think globalization". That is, globalization with a lot of national characteristics. Sort of like the English language. Different accents, different idioms, even different meanings for the same word. But recognizably English. The other part on collaboration (i.e. Cooperation) was done by my colleague and she concluded that it was possible to have international cooperation. There will be some free-loading but it is possible overall. In short, to encapsulate in a soundbite, it's "All for one but not one for all". All should aim for one Internet and in many areas it would be possible. But in many areas, it cannot be one Internet for all. Realistically, we have to allow for national variations and it is already happening. Regards, Peng Hwa [cid:CEF8D22A-0A24-4037-9EB3-41C19EE1019A]ANG Peng Hwa (Professor) | Director, Singapore Internet Research Centre | Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information | Nanyang Technological University | WKWSCI 02-17, 31 Nanyang Link, Singapore 639798 Tel: (65) 67906109 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6792-7526 | Web: www.ntu.edu.sg/sci/sirc On 8/10/13 11:50 PM, "John Curran" > wrote: On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: I have two (but related) additional issues with the Montevideo document The first is the uncritical acceptance of the notion ("reality") of what is termed "multistakeholder cooperation".. Given the degree to which that term/concept as yet remains ill-defined, non-formalized, contested, ambiguous etc. etc. to use it in this way without for example, having an addiitonal point recommending some degree of more formally framing/anchoring the notion raises significant questions concerning the rest of the statement. If "MS cooperation" is to the active agent for resolving issues and we don't have a clear and broadly agreed to notion of what we mean by MS cooperation then we really have little at all. Agreed. In fact, while I think that multistakeholder cooperation (meaning the ability of all parties to participate in an open and transparent manner) has worked very well for technical standards and related registry policy, it is not apparent that it suffices (at least unchanged) as we begin to look at the next stage of Internet cooperation. Associated with this is the failure to recognize the significance of the NSA's subversion of the IETF process. If the NSA chose to subvert that "MS" process in the interests of their broad goal of (according to General Alexander) "Information dominance", then what other MS process might they have or have not subverted in pursuit of the same goal and on what basis can we trust or rely on any other MS processes in their current form going forward. Also agreed. We can hope that awareness of these incidents can help with awareness to detecting future attempts, but that does not address any other past occurrences now latent in our processes. Excellent points both - Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone (unless the result of manipulation undetected ;-) ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 539B7898-465C-4BEC-93E5-EDF160DCB62A[2].png Type: image/png Size: 11944 bytes Desc: 539B7898-465C-4BEC-93E5-EDF160DCB62A[2].png URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Oct 8 13:22:53 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:22:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <52542B4C.9080304@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FDFB.8030408@itforchange.net> <52542B4C.9080304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:57 AM, parminder > wrote: Question number 8 - "What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? (emphasis added)" The question clearly seeks response as to what changes/ evolution the respondent wants to see in global IG mechanism, including in that part dealing with coordination and management of critical Internet resources. ... For convenience of others here, I quote as below the response that ARIN gave to the above question in their response to WGEC. (Similar responses were given by other signatories of the Montevideo statement) "Since their inception, many of the organizations associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet number resources have employed various media such as open mailing lists, websites and open face-to-face meetings, to reach those with an interest in these topics. Additionally, the IGFs on all levels, national, regional and global, have been instrumental in encouraging interaction between the stakeholders. The increase in communications and outreach has resulted in a better understanding of the issues for all involved stakeholders." Does it sound like ARIN seeks "truly substantive" evolution/ change anywhere at all? Not to me. No, it does not, but note that the phrase "fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda" first requires unpacking to determining what exactly that phrase means. Without clarity on that point and given the multiple interpretations of multiple paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda, it is not possible to advocate for change to coordination and management of critical Internet resources only as described via the phrase "as recognized in the Tunis Agenda". To do so would encourage everyone to take their own theory of that meaning and claim support. Now, please reference question #6 - "How should enhanced cooperation be implemented to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet?" ARIN's response to question #8 is as follows - "It is important to recognize and define what “international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet” means. There are many layers to policy and a variety of stakeholders. Policy makers should feel free to call on the wide area of expertise available to them, and should make public policy goals both clear and high-level, recognizing that aids their consideration during development of global technical standards and practices that keep the Internet running. It is essential that all stakeholders recognize that the call for enhanced cooperation in the Tunis Agenda was “to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet,” rather than the day- to-day technical and operational matters that do not have international public policy implications." You might note similarity to the Montevideo statement, calling for the evolution of the existing model to better enable governments and others on equal footing - "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." Again, ARIN supports evolution of Internet coordination to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, and specifically asks that they should make their public policy goals both clear and high- level, recognizing that aids their consideration during development of global technical standards and practices that keep the Internet running. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 13:30:28 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:30:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FDFB.8030408@itforchange.net> <52542B4C.9080304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:22 PM, John Curran wrote: > > > Again, ARIN supports evolution of Internet coordination to enable > governments to carry out > their roles and responsibilities on international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet, > and specifically asks that they should make their public policy goals both > clear and high- > level, recognizing that aids their consideration during development of > global technical > standards and practices that keep the Internet running. I might note that while John was writing the above he was also running a multistakeholder meeting ( can be viewed at: http://kikaua.com/clients/arin/ ) and the topic being discussed while he wrote the above was actually a proposal brought by a government rep. In other words, ARIN is not just talking about, but actually implementing EC at this very moment! -- McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 14:29:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:29:32 -0700 Subject: Additonal issues RE: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <073001cec43c$de538360$9afa8a20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <085001cec454$5d81fce0$1885f6a0$@gmail.com> And John I think it is important to reiterate and emphasize your point below "that multistakeholder cooperation (meaning the ability of all parties to participate in an open and transparent manner) has worked very well for technical standards and related registry policy, it is not apparent that it suffices (at least unchanged) as we begin to look at the next stage of Internet cooperation" because it is there that a lot of our colleagues and others either willfully or out of awareness conflate the two processes. The informal and collegial nature of MS processes among techies who have worked together over long periods of time and who swap jobs and hats between government, the private sector and academe has evidently been very workable and successful in the narrow technical areas in which it has been operative (although of course, the NSA revelations put brackets around this as does the highly skewed nature of the socio-demographic nature of the participants in these processes). But the idea of very complex issues of governance, global governance, global Internet governance, and global governance of the Internet are way beyond anything that can be dealt with in such a "clubby", ad hoc and informal manner and I believe it is either highly naïve or downright duplicitous to argue the contrary. The challenge as various folks have been suggesting for some time is to figure out ways to achieve the range of inclusion (and including expertise and interest/stakeholder representivity), decsion making close to those being impacted by the decisions, and flexibility of processes of current MS actvities while ensuring that the overall processes aren't captured, subverted, misdirected in the specific interests of one stakeholder group or even one stakeholder or another. M -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:50 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: Additonal issues RE: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > I have two (but related) additional issues with the Montevideo > document > > The first is the uncritical acceptance of the notion ("reality") of > what is termed "multistakeholder cooperation".. Given the degree to > which that term/concept as yet remains ill-defined, non-formalized, > contested, ambiguous etc. etc. to use it in this way without for > example, having an addiitonal point recommending some degree of more > formally framing/anchoring the notion raises significant questions > concerning the rest of the statement. If "MS cooperation" is to the > active agent for resolving issues and we don't have a clear and > broadly agreed to notion of what we mean by MS cooperation then we really have little at all. Agreed. In fact, while I think that multistakeholder cooperation (meaning the ability of all parties to participate in an open and transparent manner) has worked very well for technical standards and related registry policy, it is not apparent that it suffices (at least unchanged) as we begin to look at the next stage of Internet cooperation. > Associated with this is the failure to recognize the significance of > the NSA's subversion of the IETF process. If the NSA chose to subvert that "MS" > process in the interests of their broad goal of (according to General > Alexander) "Information dominance", then what other MS process might > they have or have not subverted in pursuit of the same goal and on > what basis can we trust or rely on any other MS processes in their > current form going forward. Also agreed. We can hope that awareness of these incidents can help with awareness to detecting future attempts, but that does not address any other past occurrences now latent in our processes. Excellent points both - Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone (unless the result of manipulation undetected ;-)= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raul at lacnic.net Tue Oct 8 16:04:09 2013 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 18:04:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <25FCA73C-18D7-40F0-AD28-0E677B036524@lacnic.net> El 08/10/2013, a las 13:43, parminder escribió: > > On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:24 PM, John Curran wrote: >> snip. >> >> The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of ICANN and IANA >> a would call a truly substantial development. > > Can you please point to where such a proposal/ call exists... Is there agreement on making ICANN an international organisation incorporated under international law and not US law, and free from all kinds of US jurisdiction, and in a host country agreement with the US government and so on.... That is what globalisation or internationalisation means..... I happy to support any such proposal from the technical community, and this can be basis of some real change. > I can respond from LACNIC. My answer is Yes. We support that ICANN become an international organization incorporated under a convenient jurisdiction. In that spirit we signed this historical declaration. Raúl -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 17:25:30 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:25:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5253D4E3.3090705@itforchange.net> References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> <5253D4E3.3090705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Facing the risk of surprising people - and Parminder in the first place :-) I actually agree with his comments below. We may discuss the exact modalities of implementation of "democratic governance" but, as such, the challenge is rather accurately described. Best Bertrand On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, parminder wrote: > Any kind of over-reliance on the idea of 'data sovereignty' is a real > problem for the future of the Internet. But the only way it can be avoided > is through a better, democratic governance of the Internet. The only option > to save a global Internet is to have democratically arrived at global > norms, principles, policy frameworks, policies and laws for the global > Internet. One cant have it both ways - deny full and equal role to > developing countries in global governance of the Internet, and also tell > them that they should not, in default, take the required measures to defend > themselves and their citizens. > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 08 October 2013 02:52 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > I do not think the Montevideo declaration addresses the issue of new > cables. > > One of the direct consequences of the NSA revelations is the growing > call for "data sovereignty", ie the required in-country location of data > about citizens of that country. While it seems to make sense at first > glance, the cumulative result of every country adopting such a position > will be the proliferation of mirror databases, national clouds and most > likely incompatible national legislations. This is a potential death spell > for global cross-border clouds, which is actually bad for developing > countries as well. > > In that regard, the actions by the NSA are not only outrageous but > potentially triggering unintended consequences that will be detrimental to > the very development of the network as a global, trusted infrastructure. > Hence the connection to fragmentation, I suppose. > > By contrast, the proliferation of additional submarine cables and > Internet exchange points is actually a potential positive outcome of these > revelations. > > Best > > B. > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> I would like to understand the part "Internet fragmentation" when it's >> included in the same paragraph as the sentence about "monitoring and >> surveillance". >> >> Internet fragmentation is bad. Monitoring and surveillance is bad. >> Think that's clear. >> >> But, by including the two statements in the same paragraph, rather than >> as separate, are the organizations suggesting that recent proposals to >> build new infrastructure that avoids sending traffic via the U.S. and >> avoids U.S. monitoring and surveillance risks Internet fragmentation? >> >> Asking because that was the U.S. spin in response to proposals for such >> new infrastructure; FUD that new submarine cables would cause balkanization >> (which they would not of course). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> (FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in order >> to put a competitor at a disadvantage.) >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:15 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >> > < >> http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation >> > >> > >> > FYI, >> > /John >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy > (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 17:28:09 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 02:28:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <25FCA73C-18D7-40F0-AD28-0E677B036524@lacnic.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25FCA73C-18D7-40F0-AD28-0E677B036524@lacnic.net> Message-ID: My question then is, signing the declaration is the output of the Montevideo, a process that's is not itself realized equivalent to an IGF, then how is all this even legitimate. Remember the legitimate eG8 summit and passing all IG related discussions to its appropriate forum, the IGF which remains a weak and yet evolving multi-topic discussion and non-binding policy discourse space? The discussion on ICANN and its internationalization is happening outside the USG and ICANN itself. There is no USG call to world governments on its own nor at the UN level that may be leading a multilateral treaty for the internationalization of ICANN. ITUs WCIT drop scene is somehow forgotten, the WGEC has somehow become the well of youth where something that has not happened since WSIS shall suddenly take its magical shape. We seem to go in circles and always are where we started. It's called not having a single centre of gravity and everyone in the IG solar system is rotation in their own orbits not being able to come in a single path to create a catastrophic apocalypse of policy innovation hoping the universal forces of multilateralism will pick up multistakeholderism and pass on the powers of universal governance to the moons and space particles that can rotate and collide with others inane direction. This is called IG Star Wars. The federation is on it's own and starship ICANN does not exist under the federation, the warlords of the planet domain name and/or dns industry are the power that the federation will never be able to break. Our spaceship to the federation headquarters hasn't taken off yet, our pilot and co-pilot have never agreed on a flight path because the co is a technical guy and the pilot used to be a federation employee. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:04 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > El 08/10/2013, a las 13:43, parminder escribió: > >> >> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:24 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> snip. >>> >>> The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of ICANN and IANA >>> a would call a truly substantial development. >> >> Can you please point to where such a proposal/ call exists... Is there agreement on making ICANN an international organisation incorporated under international law and not US law, and free from all kinds of US jurisdiction, and in a host country agreement with the US government and so on.... That is what globalisation or internationalisation means..... I happy to support any such proposal from the technical community, and this can be basis of some real change. >> > > I can respond from LACNIC. > My answer is Yes. We support that ICANN become an international organization incorporated under a convenient jurisdiction. > In that spirit we signed this historical declaration. > > > Raúl > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Oct 8 17:37:18 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 02:37:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5253D4E3.3090705@itforchange.net> References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> <5253D4E3.3090705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <03567574-E2DF-4B03-AA2A-31BAB90AF546@gmail.com> Data Sovereignty is only for a club of powerful developed nations.....if the leaks are from developing countries it's neither a scandal, whistle blowing or something really important as its just a leaked intel that is no use in any way....a story or two in the New York Times, in the Guardian or on the cable news just fill in the available news space...impact, criminal charges on the leaker and asylum politics.... Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 8, 2013, at 2:48 PM, parminder wrote: > Any kind of over-reliance on the idea of 'data sovereignty' is a real problem for the future of the Internet. But the only way it can be avoided is through a better, democratic governance of the Internet. The only option to save a global Internet is to have democratically arrived at global norms, principles, policy frameworks, policies and laws for the global Internet. One cant have it both ways - deny full and equal role to developing countries in global governance of the Internet, and also tell them that they should not, in default, take the required measures to defend themselves and their citizens. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 08 October 2013 02:52 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Hi Adam, >> >> I do not think the Montevideo declaration addresses the issue of new cables. >> >> One of the direct consequences of the NSA revelations is the growing call for "data sovereignty", ie the required in-country location of data about citizens of that country. While it seems to make sense at first glance, the cumulative result of every country adopting such a position will be the proliferation of mirror databases, national clouds and most likely incompatible national legislations. This is a potential death spell for global cross-border clouds, which is actually bad for developing countries as well. >> >> In that regard, the actions by the NSA are not only outrageous but potentially triggering unintended consequences that will be detrimental to the very development of the network as a global, trusted infrastructure. Hence the connection to fragmentation, I suppose. >> >> By contrast, the proliferation of additional submarine cables and Internet exchange points is actually a potential positive outcome of these revelations. >> >> Best >> >> B. >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> I would like to understand the part "Internet fragmentation" when it's included in the same paragraph as the sentence about "monitoring and surveillance". >> >> Internet fragmentation is bad. Monitoring and surveillance is bad. Think that's clear. >> >> But, by including the two statements in the same paragraph, rather than as separate, are the organizations suggesting that recent proposals to build new infrastructure that avoids sending traffic via the U.S. and avoids U.S. monitoring and surveillance risks Internet fragmentation? >> >> Asking because that was the U.S. spin in response to proposals for such new infrastructure; FUD that new submarine cables would cause balkanization (which they would not of course). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> (FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally in order to put a competitor at a disadvantage.) >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:15 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > FYI, >> > /John >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) >> Member, ICANN Board of Directors >> 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 8 17:55:02 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:55:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25FCA73C-18D7-40F0-AD28-0E677B036524@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <1B777083-B779-4A70-890B-9FAB448DC1E3@istaff.org> On Oct 8, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > My question then is, signing the declaration is the output of the Montevideo, a process that's is not itself realized equivalent to an IGF, then how is all this even legitimate. Remember the legitimate eG8 summit and passing all IG related discussions to its appropriate forum, the IGF which remains a weak and yet evolving multi-topic discussion and non-binding policy discourse space? The Montevideo statement is just that, a statement signed by several organizations involved in the Internet coordination and infrastructure. It doesn't preclude others from making statements of their views, or continuing the discussion at other forums, or completely ignoring it. It is legitimate as an expression of views by the signing organizations; nothing more and nothing less. The fact that I can read your email at all is a consequence of the success of those organizations, but past performance is not an indication of future success. > The discussion on ICANN and its internationalization is happening outside the USG and ICANN itself. There's been quite a few discussions occurring around the globe (both within the US and outside) on Internet cooperation, governance, and related topics (e're going to have another round of them in Bali in just a week or so...) > There is no USG call to world governments on its own nor at the UN level that may be leading a multilateral treaty for the internationalization of ICANN. It is not apparent that a "multilateral treaty" is necessarily the best path forward, but in any case, it is first necessary to raise awareness that the current arrangement of oversight should evolve from the current unique USG role. That might be perfect obvious to those on this list, but is further advanced among those not aware by the various Internet organizations making the Montevideo statement which encourages change in this area. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. No treaty organizations were created via this email. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Oct 8 18:12:43 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:12:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <1B777083-B779-4A70-890B-9FAB448DC1E3@istaff.org> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25FCA73C-18D7-40F0-AD28-0E677B036524@lacnic.net> <1B777083-B779-4A70-890B-9FAB448DC1E3@istaff.org> Message-ID: <75485F4C-8A00-483D-B882-B80E503701CC@istaff.org> On Oct 8, 2013, at 2:55 PM, John Curran wrote: > The fact that I can read your email at > all is a consequence of the success of those organizations, but past > performance is not an indication of future success. Wow - there's quite a typo in the above... My point above was only that fact that anyone has global useful working email is a result of the success of these organizations... (My prior phrasing was way too subject to misinterpretation. ;-) Mea culpa, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Oct 8 19:41:36 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 01:41:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? Message-ID: I would bet that UK leaders are more concerned with the revelations than with surveillance. Louis - - - On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > El 08/10/2013, a las 11:19, Carlos A. Afonso escribió: > > > This sentence is ambiguous: "They expressed strong concern over the > undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to > recent revelations of pervasive monitoring > > and surveillance." > > > > It seems the "leaders" are more concerned by the revelations of > surveillance than by surveillance itself. > > > Carlos > > Maybe it is not the best wording, but I guess that it is very clear that > what is a matter of concern is the surveillance and its impact in the > trust and confidence, not the revelations. > > > Raúl > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Oct 8 19:50:39 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:50:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:43 AM, parminder > wrote: On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:24 PM, John Curran wrote: The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of ICANN and IANA a would call a truly substantial development. Can you please point to where such a proposal/ call exists... Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, 3rd bullet - "They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." It is a _call_, not a _proposal_ Is there agreement on making ICANN an international organisation incorporated under international law and not US law, and free from all kinds of US jurisdiction, and in a host country agreement with the US government and so on.... That is what globalisation or internationalisation means..... I happy to support any such proposal from the technical community, and this can be basis of some real change. Again, it is a call for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, not a plan for doing such... I do believe that we're all using the term globalization to mean "free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance". Opening a new office in Africa or China or India is not globalisation - even US has embassies in all these place, because of which US cannot be called as having been globalised or internationalised. Agreed. We have always been very forthcoming to present what we think it would look like (although always open to further comments and changes). For instance, see this recent statement to the WGEC by 46 organisations including ours, http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/Statement_on_democratizing_Internet_governance_0.pdf . Happy to hear your comments on this. Is the new "Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board" a component of the 'new UN body', or an distinct entity? For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"... how would one globalize the 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the USG/NTIA? See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes over this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind of US jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to globalise/ internationalise something ? There are many different possible structures and mechanisms, for example, you propose a new UN body, an Oversight Board, globalization of ICANN, and maintenance/strengthening of the existing IGF. I can easily imagine other methods of solving this problem with different arrangements of bodies and mechanisms. The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation does not propose any particular solution, but only states that several organizations which are involved in Internet coordination believe that the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions (towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing) is a goal worth accelerating. Given your strong expression of concern over the statement, I guess the question arises - would you have preferred a statement which indicated that the current USG oversight of ICANN and IANA is just fine? That certainly would have supported the status quo... /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 9 00:52:10 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:52:10 +0800 Subject: Additonal issues RE: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <073001cec43c$de538360$9afa8a20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5254E0FA.7060509@ciroap.org> On 08/10/13 23:50, John Curran wrote: > Agreed. In fact, while I think that multistakeholder cooperation > (meaning the ability of all parties to participate in an open and > transparent manner) has worked very well for technical standards and > related registry policy, it is not apparent that it suffices (at least > unchanged) as we begin to look at the next stage of Internet cooperation. By the way John, can you clarify the intended meaning of the new phrase "Internet cooperation"? Is it intended to be as more meaningful synonym for "enhanced cooperation [on Internet-related public policy issues]"? Note, I don't really have a problem with that, and in many ways it may be good to break away from the context of the Tunis Agenda in taking forward the discussion on enhanced/Internet cooperation. But for now just seeking some insight into the reasoning behind it. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 9 01:07:36 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:07:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25FCA73C-18D7-40F0-AD28-0E677B036524@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <5254E498.8020206@ciroap.org> On 09/10/13 05:28, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > My question then is, signing the declaration is the output of the Montevideo, a process that's is not itself realized equivalent to an IGF, then how is all this even legitimate. Remember the legitimate eG8 summit and passing all IG related discussions to its appropriate forum, the IGF which remains a weak and yet evolving multi-topic discussion and non-binding policy discourse space? I have to disagree (this may surprise some who see me as an opponent of the technical community - which I'm really not). It is perfectly legitimate for stakeholder groups to make their own position statements, provided that they are not put forward as being anything more than that. So, to continue your space metaphor, I welcome the Montevideo Statement as a modest break from the position that everything revolves around the technical community, and a sign that they are now reaching out into higher orbits and perhaps accepting a less geocentric view of the Internet governance universe. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 9 01:18:23 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:18:23 -0700 Subject: Additonal issues RE: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5254E0FA.7060509@ciroap.org> References: <073001cec43c$de538360$9afa8a20$@gmail.com> <5254E0FA.7060509@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 08/10/13 23:50, John Curran wrote: >> Agreed. In fact, while I think that multistakeholder cooperation (meaning the ability of all parties to participate in an open and transparent manner) has worked very well for technical standards and related registry policy, it is not apparent that it suffices (at least unchanged) as we begin to look at the next stage of Internet cooperation. > > By the way John, can you clarify the intended meaning of the new phrase "Internet cooperation"? Is it intended to be as more meaningful synonym for "enhanced cooperation [on Internet-related public policy issues]"? It's meant in the plain meaning of the individual words - i.e. organizations cooperating together on Internet matters. > Note, I don't really have a problem with that, and in many ways it may be good to break away from the context of the Tunis Agenda in taking forward the discussion on enhanced/Internet cooperation. But for now just seeking some insight into the reasoning behind it. Use of specialized "terms of art" doesn't always improve communication, (in fact, it often makes active participation less available to uninitiated...) /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Disclaimers in this message are recursively disclaimed. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 01:29:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:59:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> Message-ID: <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 05:20 AM, John Curran wrote: > > >> > > Again, it is a call for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, not > a plan for > doing such... I do believe that we're all using the term > globalization to mean > "free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance". Thanks for that clarification. Now that we agree that we are all for globalisation of ICANN and IANA function, and are building consensus what we mean by such globalisation, and what we dont mean, it is a promising start. > >> Opening a new office in Africa or China or India is not globalisation >> - even US has embassies in all these place, because of which US >> cannot be called as having been globalised or internationalised. > > Agreed. > > Is the new "Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board" a > component of > the 'new UN body', or an distinct entity? It is not a new UN body. It is standalone. And we propose novel non- or semi-political composition of it, or as we call it, a techno- political composition. I am cut pasting the entire relevant text below. Advice is welcome. As mentioned one can consider other ways of filling the membership - say, half the members can be from regional registries, and other from technical organisations from countries by rotation.... Many such possibilities exist - to globalise ICANN/IANA without exposing it to potential political harm. The following is the text with regard to the proposed 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Broad'. We are cognizant that this isnt the perfect proposal, but one needs to make a start somewhere. This board will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, /i.e./consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political membership of this board can also be considered.) The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure that the various technical and operational functions related to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must become an international organization, without changing its existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. (ends) parminder > >>> For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"... how would one >>> globalize the >>> 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the >>> USG/NTIA? >> See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes over >> this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind of US >> jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to globalise/ >> internationalise something ? > > There are many different possible structures and mechanisms, for example, > you propose a new UN body, an Oversight Board, globalization of ICANN, > and maintenance/strengthening of the existing IGF. I can easily imagine > other methods of solving this problem with different arrangements of > bodies > and mechanisms. > > The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation does not > propose any particular solution, but only states that several > organizations > which are involved in Internet coordination believe that the > globalization of > ICANN and IANA functions (towards an environment in which all > stakeholders, > including all governments, participate on an equal footing) is a goal > worth > accelerating. > > Given your strong expression of concern over the statement, I guess the > question arises - would you have preferred a statement which indicated > that > the current USG oversight of ICANN and IANA is just fine? That certainly > would have supported the status quo... > > /John > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 01:46:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:16:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> Message-ID: <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> I am willing to take the technical community at its word on the Montevideo statement that they indeed seek truly substantive progress towards globalisation of ICANN and IANA function. There is also an important clarification provided by John that " we're all using the term globalization to mean"free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance". Raul has also made a clear statement that LACNIC supports "ICANN becoming an international organisation incorporated under a convenient jurisdiction". There are other good leads in ARIN's response to WGEC - like, technical bodies are best guided under clearly set but relatively higher level public policy principles ........ I think we may have a basis here to try to move forward. And this is a very good time to do so, with global confidence in the Internet shaken post-Snowden as perhaps never before. If people are to get a real response, it is now. Anyway, I can understand that actual working technical organisations, with clear organisational responsibilities, and a place in the IG ecosystem, would be conservative to actually begun making specific proposals. I mean they cant perhaps do it in the same way as civil society can. And here a good division of labour comes into picture. So, what about civil society groups making a statement welcoming the Montevideo statement, especially its commitment to seeing some substantial progress forward on globalisation of ICANN and IANA functions, and in this context, 'we present the following proposal for the consideration and support of the technical community'. The proposal would be made of some clear principles followed by specific (though yet a bit higher level) institutional steps and processes for globalisation of the ICANN and IANA. We can discuss these principles and specific institutional changes on this list so that we have a statement that is likely to be accepted by the technical community. If we can agree to this and take a common statement to, well, the governments, I think we would have accomplished a lot. I can bet, a real shift will begun that day. Any takers? parminder On Wednesday 09 October 2013 05:20 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 8:43 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 08 October 2013 07:24 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> The clear, uniform call by these organizations for globalization of >>> ICANN and IANA >>> a would call a truly substantial development. >> >> Can you please point to where such a proposal/ call exists... > > Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, 3rd bullet - > > "They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA > functions, > towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all > governments, > participate on an equal footing." > > It is a _call_, not a _proposal_ > >> Is there agreement on making ICANN an international organisation >> incorporated under international law and not US law, and free from >> all kinds of US jurisdiction, and in a host country agreement with >> the US government and so on.... That is what globalisation or >> internationalisation means..... I happy to support any such proposal >> from the technical community, and this can be basis of some real change. > > Again, it is a call for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, not > a plan for > doing such... I do believe that we're all using the term > globalization to mean > "free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance". > >> Opening a new office in Africa or China or India is not globalisation >> - even US has embassies in all these place, because of which US >> cannot be called as having been globalised or internationalised. > > Agreed. > >> We have always been very forthcoming to present what we think it >> would look like (although always open to further comments and >> changes). For instance, see this recent statement to the WGEC by 46 >> organisations including ours, >> http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/Statement_on_democratizing_Internet_governance_0.pdf >> . Happy to hear your comments on this. > > Is the new "Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board" a > component of > the 'new UN body', or an distinct entity? > >>> For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"... how would one >>> globalize the >>> 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the >>> USG/NTIA? >> See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes over >> this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind of US >> jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to globalise/ >> internationalise something ? > > There are many different possible structures and mechanisms, for example, > you propose a new UN body, an Oversight Board, globalization of ICANN, > and maintenance/strengthening of the existing IGF. I can easily imagine > other methods of solving this problem with different arrangements of > bodies > and mechanisms. > > The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation does not > propose any particular solution, but only states that several > organizations > which are involved in Internet coordination believe that the > globalization of > ICANN and IANA functions (towards an environment in which all > stakeholders, > including all governments, participate on an equal footing) is a goal > worth > accelerating. > > Given your strong expression of concern over the statement, I guess the > question arises - would you have preferred a statement which indicated > that > the current USG oversight of ICANN and IANA is just fine? That certainly > would have supported the status quo... > > /John > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Oct 9 01:52:57 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 05:52:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:29 PM, parminder > wrote: Again, it is a call for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, not a plan for doing such... I do believe that we're all using the term globalization to mean "free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance". Thanks for that clarification. Now that we agree that we are all for globalisation of ICANN and IANA function, and are building consensus what we mean by such globalisation, and what we dont mean, it is a promising start. Indeed. Is the new "Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board" a component of the 'new UN body', or an distinct entity? It is not a new UN body. It is standalone. And we propose novel non- or semi-political composition of it, or as we call it, a techno- political composition. I am cut pasting the entire relevant text below. Advice is welcome. As mentioned one can consider other ways of filling the membership - say, half the members can be from regional registries, and other from technical organisations from countries by rotation.... Many such possibilities exist - to globalise ICANN/IANA without exposing it to potential political harm. Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely open and transparent? i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development in this model actually undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to a set of principles and then have the results posted and discussed publicly? Is there a need for only a select community to participate in the oversight? The following is the text with regard to the proposed 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Broad'. We are cognizant that this isnt the perfect proposal, but one needs to make a start somewhere. ... The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure that the various technical and operational functions related to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies. The mission statement above is very interesting; it definitely encompasses much more hands-on direction of ICANN than the present oversight model. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over ICANN. Umm.. I would beg to differ - the current oversight does indeed focus on making sure that ICANN fulfills its obligations, but that does not presently include the phrase "as per ... public policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies." An _oversight_ role should be about ICANN fulfilling its mission, yet you've effectively set a charter for this Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board which indirectly _changes_ ICANN's mission by making it subject to public policies "principles" of vague and uncertain origin. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them. Changing the oversight of ICANN is unrelated to some form of oversight over IETF; yet this appears conflated (albeit in a non-binding role)... this is both unnecessary and creates significant risk. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. If there are truly international public policies laws, mandates or norms, the technical standards bodies are quite capable of considering them in development efforts, and does not need any intermediary. For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must become an international organization, without changing its existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. Apparently, this Board is also accepting public policy _inputs_ (not adopted norms or mandates) and will in some manner, use these in the oversight of ICANN? This is not an _oversight_ role, this appears to be direct supervision of ICANN's mission. Was any consideration given of a true oversight body/role? /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 01:52:51 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:52:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I would like to get clarification from your side about this part > This board will replace the US government's current oversight role over > the technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The > membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, * > i.e.* consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also have > appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic process. > For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each > from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN system). These memberscan perhaps be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant > technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the > countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the > techno-political membership of this board can also be considered.) > > in particular the meaning of "appropriate political backing" and what kind of democratic process you are envisioning? Best, Rafik > > parminder > > > > For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"... how would one > globalize the > > 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by the > USG/NTIA? > > See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes over > this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind of US > jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to globalise/ > internationalise something ? > > > There are many different possible structures and mechanisms, for example, > you propose a new UN body, an Oversight Board, globalization of ICANN, > and maintenance/strengthening of the existing IGF. I can easily imagine > other methods of solving this problem with different arrangements of bodies > and mechanisms. > > The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation does not > propose any particular solution, but only states that several > organizations > which are involved in Internet coordination believe that the globalization > of > ICANN and IANA functions (towards an environment in which all > stakeholders, > including all governments, participate on an equal footing) is a goal > worth > accelerating. > > Given your strong expression of concern over the statement, I guess the > question arises - would you have preferred a statement which indicated that > the current USG oversight of ICANN and IANA is just fine? That certainly > would have supported the status quo... > > /John > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 02:50:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:20:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> Message-ID: <5254FCA3.6050500@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote: > > > Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely open and > transparent? > i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development in this > model actually > undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to a set of > principles and > then have the results posted and discussed publicly? Is there a need > for only a > select community to participate in the oversight? 'Openness' has institutional and practical limits. It can easily be captured by the powerful (incumbents) to mean what they would like it to mean. ICANN can be said to be already subject to such an open scrutiny by global constituencies - its various constitutive processes and so on... Are you saying that is enough. So then ICANN is already globalised and requires no oversight. I cant agree. We need a body with however limited and circumscribed function to exercise core oversight function. Such division of executive authority (ICANN broad) and oversight role (as governing bodies of NGOS for instance do over the executive staff) is very necessary. No body can work appropriately without such separation of power and responsibilities. And ICANN functions are of two great global importance to leave ICANN board will absolute power to do things as, more or less, it at present has. Also, this proposed global Board will also exercise the IANA function, which is with the US government at present. This function cannot be exercised by an open participative process. BTW, external, third party audits are technical/ professional processes that are ancillary to proper oversight, and can never constitute actual oversight. All this is well known and discussed in organisational and governance theories, and I would not go into deeper details. We all know, we get the 'third party' auditors that we want to get - and they can in any case only point to some very clearly illegal or extra-legal things - auditors are not there to cast political or even substantive governance judgements. parminder > >> The following is the text with regard to the proposed 'Internet >> Technical Oversight and Advisory Broad'. We are cognizant that this >> isnt the perfect proposal, but one needs to make a start somewhere. >> ... >> >> The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to >> ensure that the various technical and operational functions related >> to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations >> as per international law and public policy principles developed by >> the concerned international bodies. > > The mission statement above is very interesting; it definitely > encompasses much more > hands-on direction of ICANN than the present oversight model. > >> With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be >> exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight >> over ICANN. > > Umm.. I would beg to differ - the current oversight does indeed focus > on making sure that > ICANN fulfills its obligations, but that does not presently include > the phrase "as per ... public > policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies." > > An _oversight_ role should be about ICANN fulfilling its mission, yet > you've effectively > set a charter for this Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board > which indirectly > _changes_ ICANN's mission by making it subject to public policies > "principles" of vague > and uncertain origin. > >> As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, >> like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing >> systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to >> work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and >> non-binding role with regard to them. > > Changing the oversight of ICANN is unrelated to some form of oversight > over IETF; yet > this appears conflated (albeit in a non-binding role)... this is both > unnecessary and creates > significant risk. > >> It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical >> standards bodies on, international public policies, international law >> and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. > > If there are truly international public policies laws, mandates or > norms, the technical standards > bodies are quite capable of considering them in development efforts, > and does not need any > intermediary. >> >> For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN >> must become an international organization, without changing its >> existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It >> would enter into a host country agreement with the US government >> (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It >> would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and >> be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under >> it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also >> be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise >> this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. >> >> This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy >> body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy >> making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. >> > Apparently, this Board is also accepting public policy _inputs_ (not > adopted norms or mandates) > and will in some manner, use these in the oversight of ICANN? This is > not an _oversight_ role, > this appears to be direct supervision of ICANN's mission. Was any > consideration given of a true > oversight body/role? > > /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 03:00:14 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:30:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> Message-ID: <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> John, Your principal issue with the Oversight Board we proposed is that - it seeks to ensure that ICANN works as per international law and legally developed policies, rather than, as you say is the present oversight function, merely ensure that ICANN fulfils its mandate properly. My response is as follows. One, the new IANA contract seeks a public interest justification for any root modification, and that directly puts IANA authourity holder - the US government - in a position of making judgements over what constitutes public interest, which is a much more unclear term, and open to subjective interpretations, than seeking adherence to international law and legally developed and communicated international policies etc. So, if your bottom line is - dont go beyond the current US oversight function, I am fine with it. But in our proposal, we are being clearer (and milder) than the current US oversight function is. Second, I understand it is already ICANN's self-defined mandate to work as per international law. Isnt it. We are just reinforcing it. I mean, it should be something higher than the ICANN's own authority to change this particualr mandate. They cant simply mandate themselves one day not to have to work as per international law. However, I am happy to change the language and role of the mandate of the proposed oversight board to keep it as close to the current oversight role as played by the US governemnt at present. we can put in an agreed text , at a general principle level say, that the role of the proposed global oversight board will be exactly as played by the US governemnt at present in its oversight authority. That that work for you. Lastly, you have a objection to the secondary advisory role given to the same body (the proposed global oversight board) with regard to IETF and other technical standards bodies. We, the group that proposed this statement, strongly feel that the time has come that IETF kind of so called open processes have some kind of an institutional international advisory board that can regularly bring in public policy perspectives to such bodies. We are very clear that this role is indeed strictly advisory. This will also benefit the technical standards bodies a lot, and so forth. But for the present purpose, to get a consensus, we can entirely remove the advisory role for such a proposed body from the mandate. And just have a global oversight board with exactly the same mandate, role and authourity as is exercised by the UG government with regard to ICANN/ IANA function. We can just agree to this particular language. Meanwhile however I do remember that you have regularly mentioned - and it appears in ARIN's response to WGEC as well - that technical community will want clearly laid out international law and public polices, at a relatively higher/ general level, and would welcome any effort in this direction. A global oversight board, constituted properly, and relatively insulated from political subversion, will be able to do precisely that. Otherwise the canvass of international law and pulbic policies can be too spread out and diffuse to make propoer sense to those invovled with day to day technical operations pertaining to the Internet. A properly constituted and mandated oversight board would in fact do what you, and evidently, AIRN has been asking for - clear policy frameworks, but any policy body staying at more than an arms length from day to day operations. Such a pulbic policy interface is much better than say the ad hoc interventions like those done by GAC at present, completely dependent on the political muscle of the invovled country(ies) but with no clear documented legal/ policy basis. So that this proposed global oversight board does not abuse its authority, and works within its narrowly circumscribed role, its decisions should be subject to be appealed to with the Intenrational Court of Justice, which should set up a special bench for Internet issues of this kind. All this is easily plausible, given just a little political will. parminder On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:29 PM, parminder > wrote: > >>> Again, it is a call for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, >>> not a plan for >>> doing such... I do believe that we're all using the term >>> globalization to mean >>> "free from one specific country's jurisdiction/governance". >> >> Thanks for that clarification. Now that we agree that we are all for >> globalisation of ICANN and IANA function, and are building consensus >> what we mean by such globalisation, and what we dont mean, it is a >> promising start. > > Indeed. > >>> Is the new "Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board" a >>> component of >>> the 'new UN body', or an distinct entity? >> >> It is not a new UN body. It is standalone. And we propose novel non- >> or semi-political composition of it, or as we call it, a techno- >> political composition. I am cut pasting the entire relevant text >> below. Advice is welcome. As mentioned one can consider other ways of >> filling the membership - say, half the members can be from regional >> registries, and other from technical organisations from countries by >> rotation.... Many such possibilities exist - to globalise ICANN/IANA >> without exposing it to potential political harm. > > Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely open and > transparent? > i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development in this > model actually > undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to a set of > principles and > then have the results posted and discussed publicly? Is there a need > for only a > select community to participate in the oversight? > >> The following is the text with regard to the proposed 'Internet >> Technical Oversight and Advisory Broad'. We are cognizant that this >> isnt the perfect proposal, but one needs to make a start somewhere. >> ... >> >> The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to >> ensure that the various technical and operational functions related >> to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations >> as per international law and public policy principles developed by >> the concerned international bodies. > > The mission statement above is very interesting; it definitely > encompasses much more > hands-on direction of ICANN than the present oversight model. > >> With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be >> exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight >> over ICANN. > > Umm.. I would beg to differ - the current oversight does indeed focus > on making sure that > ICANN fulfills its obligations, but that does not presently include > the phrase "as per ... public > policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies." > > An _oversight_ role should be about ICANN fulfilling its mission, yet > you've effectively > set a charter for this Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board > which indirectly > _changes_ ICANN's mission by making it subject to public policies > "principles" of vague > and uncertain origin. > >> As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, >> like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing >> systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to >> work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and >> non-binding role with regard to them. > > Changing the oversight of ICANN is unrelated to some form of oversight > over IETF; yet > this appears conflated (albeit in a non-binding role)... this is both > unnecessary and creates > significant risk. > >> It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical >> standards bodies on, international public policies, international law >> and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. > > If there are truly international public policies laws, mandates or > norms, the technical standards > bodies are quite capable of considering them in development efforts, > and does not need any > intermediary. >> >> For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN >> must become an international organization, without changing its >> existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It >> would enter into a host country agreement with the US government >> (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It >> would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and >> be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under >> it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also >> be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise >> this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. >> >> This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy >> body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy >> making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. >> > Apparently, this Board is also accepting public policy _inputs_ (not > adopted norms or mandates) > and will in some manner, use these in the oversight of ICANN? This is > not an _oversight_ role, > this appears to be direct supervision of ICANN's mission. Was any > consideration given of a true > oversight body/role? > > /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 03:10:14 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:40:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52550156.5020200@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > I would like to get clarification from your side about this part > > > This board will replace the US government's current oversight > role over the technical and operational functions performed by > ICANN. The membership of this oversight board can be of a > techno-political nature, /i.e./consisting of people with > specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political > backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For > instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 > members each from five geographic regions (as understood in > the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected through > an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards > bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries > of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting > the techno-political membership of this board can also be > considered.) > > > in particular the meaning of "appropriate political backing" and what > kind of democratic process you are envisioning? Hi Rafik, This is left deliberately vague, to accommodate a series of possible options. However, it is being made clear that we want both political legitimacy and backing as well as technical expertise - without possibility for political subversion (that is typically feared from a multilateral UN kind of body) but also not left to be captured by anyone with global political an economic muscle, which, excuse me to say, technical bodies are prone to be captured by. Well, in any case, oversight is a political or public policy function and not something that technical community can be legitimacy be exercising by itself. 'Political' in the sense that every person has equal right to bring in her/ his perceptive irrespective of their technical knowledge, which brings the challenge of arriving at the highest public interest. . One may look at some global standards bodies which consist of area experts - coming often from established and relatively autonomous institutions - but also having some kind/ level of political acceptance in their respective countries etc.... As I said elsewhere, say half of the members of this proposed new oversight body can be from regional registries, and other half from country based technical institutions, by rotation - numerous such possibilities exist. parminder > > Best, > > Rafik > > > parminder > > >> >>>> For example, there is an "IANA Function Contract"... how would >>>> one globalize the >>>> 'IANA oversight' function that is nominally provided today by >>>> the USG/NTIA? >>> See the above link...... Set up an international body that takes >>> over this function with no accountability to the US, or any kind >>> of US jurisdiction... Simple. What other way is there to >>> globalise/ internationalise something ? >> >> There are many different possible structures and mechanisms, for >> example, >> you propose a new UN body, an Oversight Board, globalization of >> ICANN, >> and maintenance/strengthening of the existing IGF. I can easily >> imagine >> other methods of solving this problem with different arrangements >> of bodies >> and mechanisms. >> >> The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation >> does not >> propose any particular solution, but only states that several >> organizations >> which are involved in Internet coordination believe that the >> globalization of >> ICANN and IANA functions (towards an environment in which all >> stakeholders, >> including all governments, participate on an equal footing) is a >> goal worth >> accelerating. >> >> Given your strong expression of concern over the statement, I >> guess the >> question arises - would you have preferred a statement >> which indicated that >> the current USG oversight of ICANN and IANA is just fine? That >> certainly >> would have supported the status quo... >> >> /John >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 9 03:21:42 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:21:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5254FCA3.6050500@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FCA3.6050500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:50 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >> >> Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely open and transparent? >> i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development in this model actually >> undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to a set of principles and >> then have the results posted and discussed publicly? Is there a need for only a >> select community to participate in the oversight? > > 'Openness' has institutional and practical limits. It can easily be captured by the powerful (incumbents) to mean what they would like it to mean. ICANN can be said to be already subject to such an open scrutiny by global constituencies - its various constitutive processes and so on... Are you saying that is enough. So then ICANN is already globalised and requires no oversight. I cant agree. Nor can I, that was not my statement - some form of oversight role is definitely necessary. Do you consider oversight to be inseparable from authority? I believe that a large number of institutions that claim to adhere to open and transparent principles of policy development should be subject to review and oversight, but I'm not certain that such oversight must be inherently tied to any authorizing body. In fact, we have the capability with the Internet to have institutions be held accountable for their claims of openness and transparency to a very large number of parties at once, including and all interested governments, civil society organizations, and other Internet technical coordination groups. > We need a body with however limited and circumscribed function to exercise core oversight function. Such division of executive authority (ICANN broad) and oversight role (as governing bodies of NGOS for instance do over the executive staff) is very necessary. No body can work appropriately without such separation of power and responsibilities. And ICANN functions are of two great global importance to leave ICANN board will absolute power to do things as, more or less, it at present has. Full agreement. > Also, this proposed global Board will also exercise the IANA function, which is with the US government at present. This function cannot be exercised by an open participative process. "Execise the IANA function"? Please elaborate what "exercise" means and why it should be commingled? > BTW, external, third party audits are technical/ professional processes that are ancillary to proper oversight, and can never constitute actual oversight. All this is well known and discussed in organisational and governance theories, and I would not go into deeper details. We all know, we get the 'third party' auditors that we want to get - and they can in any case only point to some very clearly illegal or extra-legal things - auditors are not there to cast political or even substantive governance judgements. Political and "governance judgement" being substituted for actual open and transparent policy making is exactly my fear, hence the desire that the oversight role be limited to judging ICANN on its compliance with its declared processes. /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 03:40:13 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:10:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FCA3.6050500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5255085D.8020902@itforchange.net> OK, John, we can have the oversight function to be "limited to judging ICANN on its compliance with its declared processes" (which I understand as per its current mandate is also to work as per international law, we may or not make this explicit, which I prefer, but can do without for the present purpose.) As I said, for good measure, in a possible agreed text, we can also add (or not), that we mean here nothing more than the role played by the US government at present. There is still lack of clarity who would "judge ICANN" in the above regard. Is a global techno-political board with membership as I proposed, including from RIRs, or some such thing, with a clearly laid out narrow mandate, subject to appeal to Intenrational Court of Justice, not acceptable to you. If not, then, who would judge. Pl be clear, Is it just the 'community processes' as ICANN claims that it has at present. Do you conflate that with the oversight role? You have asked, what does performing IANA function mean to me. Well, I am primarily speaking about actually authorising changes in the root, with the ownership over the authoritative root server - whether the function is exercised through a contracted agent or not..... There may be other number resource allocation functions etc, but I aint going into that. parminder On Wednesday 09 October 2013 12:51 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:50 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> >>> >>> Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely open >>> and transparent? >>> i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development in >>> this model actually >>> undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to a set >>> of principles and >>> then have the results posted and discussed publicly? Is there a >>> need for only a >>> select community to participate in the oversight? >> >> 'Openness' has institutional and practical limits. It can easily be >> captured by the powerful (incumbents) to mean what they would like it >> to mean. ICANN can be said to be already subject to such an open >> scrutiny by global constituencies - its various constitutive >> processes and so on... Are you saying that is enough. So then ICANN >> is already globalised and requires no oversight. I cant agree. > > Nor can I, that was not my statement - some form of oversight role is > definitely necessary. > Do you consider oversight to be inseparable from authority? I believe > that a large number > of institutions that claim to adhere to open and transparent > principles of policy development > should be subject to review and oversight, but I'm not certain that > such oversight must be > inherently tied to any authorizing body. In fact, we have the > capability with the Internet to > have institutions be held accountable for their claims of openness and > transparency to a > very large number of parties at once, including and all interested > governments, civil society > organizations, and other Internet technical coordination groups. > >> We need a body with however limited and circumscribed function to >> exercise core oversight function. Such division of executive >> authority (ICANN broad) and oversight role (as governing bodies of >> NGOS for instance do over the executive staff) is very necessary. No >> body can work appropriately without such separation of power and >> responsibilities. And ICANN functions are of two great global >> importance to leave ICANN board will absolute power to do things as, >> more or less, it at present has. > > Full agreement. > >> Also, this proposed global Board will also exercise the IANA >> function, which is with the US government at present. This function >> cannot be exercised by an open participative process. > > "Execise the IANA function"? Please elaborate what "exercise" means > and why it should > be commingled? > >> BTW, external, third party audits are technical/ professional >> processes that are ancillary to proper oversight, and can never >> constitute actual oversight. All this is well known and discussed in >> organisational and governance theories, and I would not go into >> deeper details. We all know, we get the 'third party' auditors that >> we want to get - and they can in any case only point to some very >> clearly illegal or extra-legal things - auditors are not there to >> cast political or even substantive governance judgements. > > Political and "governance judgement" being substituted for actual open > and transparent policy > making is exactly my fear, hence the desire that the oversight role be > limited to judging ICANN > on its compliance with its declared processes. > > /John > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 03:42:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:12:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FCA3.6050500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <525508F2.9010901@itforchange.net> OK, John, we can have the oversight function to be "limited to judging ICANN on its compliance with its declared processes" (and mandate ?) (which I understand as per its current mandate is also to work as per international law, we may or not make this explicit, which I prefer, but can do without for the present purpose.) As I said, for good measure, in a possible agreed text, we can also add (or not), that we mean here nothing more than the role played by the US government at present. There is still lack of clarity who would "judge ICANN" in the above regard. Is a global techno-political board with a membership pattern as I proposed, including from RIRs, or some such thing, with a clearly laid out narrow mandate, subject to appeal to International Court of Justice, not acceptable to you. If not, then, who would judge. Pl be clear, Is it just to be the 'community processes' as ICANN claims that it has at present. Do you conflate that with the oversight role? You have asked, what does performing IANA function mean to me. Well, I am primarily speaking about actually authorising changes in the root, with the ownership over the authoritative root server - whether the function is exercised through a contracted agent or not..... There may be other number resource allocation functions etc, but I aint going into that. parminder On Wednesday 09 October 2013 12:51 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:50 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> >>> >>> Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely open >>> and transparent? >>> i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development in >>> this model actually >>> undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to a set >>> of principles and >>> then have the results posted and discussed publicly? Is there a >>> need for only a >>> select community to participate in the oversight? >> >> 'Openness' has institutional and practical limits. It can easily be >> captured by the powerful (incumbents) to mean what they would like it >> to mean. ICANN can be said to be already subject to such an open >> scrutiny by global constituencies - its various constitutive >> processes and so on... Are you saying that is enough. So then ICANN >> is already globalised and requires no oversight. I cant agree. > > Nor can I, that was not my statement - some form of oversight role is > definitely necessary. > Do you consider oversight to be inseparable from authority? I believe > that a large number > of institutions that claim to adhere to open and transparent > principles of policy development > should be subject to review and oversight, but I'm not certain that > such oversight must be > inherently tied to any authorizing body. In fact, we have the > capability with the Internet to > have institutions be held accountable for their claims of openness and > transparency to a > very large number of parties at once, including and all interested > governments, civil society > organizations, and other Internet technical coordination groups. > >> We need a body with however limited and circumscribed function to >> exercise core oversight function. Such division of executive >> authority (ICANN broad) and oversight role (as governing bodies of >> NGOS for instance do over the executive staff) is very necessary. No >> body can work appropriately without such separation of power and >> responsibilities. And ICANN functions are of two great global >> importance to leave ICANN board will absolute power to do things as, >> more or less, it at present has. > > Full agreement. > >> Also, this proposed global Board will also exercise the IANA >> function, which is with the US government at present. This function >> cannot be exercised by an open participative process. > > "Execise the IANA function"? Please elaborate what "exercise" means > and why it should > be commingled? > >> BTW, external, third party audits are technical/ professional >> processes that are ancillary to proper oversight, and can never >> constitute actual oversight. All this is well known and discussed in >> organisational and governance theories, and I would not go into >> deeper details. We all know, we get the 'third party' auditors that >> we want to get - and they can in any case only point to some very >> clearly illegal or extra-legal things - auditors are not there to >> cast political or even substantive governance judgements. > > Political and "governance judgement" being substituted for actual open > and transparent policy > making is exactly my fear, hence the desire that the oversight role be > limited to judging ICANN > on its compliance with its declared processes. > > /John > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 03:49:24 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 13:19:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <525508F2.9010901@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FCA3.6050500@itforchange.net> <525508F2.9010901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52550A84.9000004@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 01:12 PM, parminder wrote: > OK, John, we can have the oversight function to be "limited to > judging ICANN on its compliance with its declared processes" (and > mandate ?) although there is a significant catch there - that if ICANN can itself change any or all of its processes and mandate, at any time, then it really makes no sense for any kind of oversight role, because then all and absolute power really still fully resides with ICANN - with no seperation of power, as is required. There has to be some 'constitutional' processes and substantive mandate that is inviolable and cannot be changed unilaterally by ICANN with regard to which it will be 'judged' by whoever has the oversight role... > (which I understand as per its current mandate is also to work as per > international law, we may or not make this explicit, which I prefer, > but can do without for the present purpose.) As I said, for good > measure, in a possible agreed text, we can also add (or not), that we > mean here nothing more than the role played by the US government at > present. > > There is still lack of clarity who would "judge ICANN" in the above > regard. Is a global techno-political board with a membership pattern > as I proposed, including from RIRs, or some such thing, with a clearly > laid out narrow mandate, subject to appeal to International Court of > Justice, not acceptable to you. If not, then, who would judge. Pl be > clear, Is it just to be the 'community processes' as ICANN claims that > it has at present. Do you conflate that with the oversight role? > > You have asked, what does performing IANA function mean to me. Well, I > am primarily speaking about actually authorising changes in the root, > with the ownership over the authoritative root server - whether the > function is exercised through a contracted agent or not..... There may > be other number resource allocation functions etc, but I aint going > into that. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 09 October 2013 12:51 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:50 PM, parminder > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wednesday 09 October 2013 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Given that the role is oversight, why not make it completely open >>>> and transparent? >>>> i.e. make the organizations that are doing policy development in >>>> this model actually >>>> undergo independent third party audits of their compliance to a set >>>> of principles and >>>> then have the results posted and discussed publicly? Is there a >>>> need for only a >>>> select community to participate in the oversight? >>> >>> 'Openness' has institutional and practical limits. It can easily be >>> captured by the powerful (incumbents) to mean what they would like >>> it to mean. ICANN can be said to be already subject to such an open >>> scrutiny by global constituencies - its various constitutive >>> processes and so on... Are you saying that is enough. So then ICANN >>> is already globalised and requires no oversight. I cant agree. >> >> Nor can I, that was not my statement - some form of oversight role is >> definitely necessary. >> Do you consider oversight to be inseparable from authority? I >> believe that a large number >> of institutions that claim to adhere to open and transparent >> principles of policy development >> should be subject to review and oversight, but I'm not certain that >> such oversight must be >> inherently tied to any authorizing body. In fact, we have the >> capability with the Internet to >> have institutions be held accountable for their claims of openness >> and transparency to a >> very large number of parties at once, including and all interested >> governments, civil society >> organizations, and other Internet technical coordination groups. >> >>> We need a body with however limited and circumscribed function to >>> exercise core oversight function. Such division of executive >>> authority (ICANN broad) and oversight role (as governing bodies of >>> NGOS for instance do over the executive staff) is very necessary. No >>> body can work appropriately without such separation of power and >>> responsibilities. And ICANN functions are of two great global >>> importance to leave ICANN board will absolute power to do things as, >>> more or less, it at present has. >> >> Full agreement. >> >>> Also, this proposed global Board will also exercise the IANA >>> function, which is with the US government at present. This function >>> cannot be exercised by an open participative process. >> >> "Execise the IANA function"? Please elaborate what "exercise" means >> and why it should >> be commingled? >> >>> BTW, external, third party audits are technical/ professional >>> processes that are ancillary to proper oversight, and can never >>> constitute actual oversight. All this is well known and discussed >>> in organisational and governance theories, and I would not go into >>> deeper details. We all know, we get the 'third party' auditors that >>> we want to get - and they can in any case only point to some very >>> clearly illegal or extra-legal things - auditors are not there to >>> cast political or even substantive governance judgements. >> >> Political and "governance judgement" being substituted for actual >> open and transparent policy >> making is exactly my fear, hence the desire that the oversight role >> be limited to judging ICANN >> on its compliance with its declared processes. >> >> /John >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Oct 9 04:06:14 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:06:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> On Oct 9, 2013, at 12:00 AM, parminder > wrote: John, Your principal issue with the Oversight Board we proposed is that - it seeks to ensure that ICANN works as per international law and legally developed policies, rather than, as you say is the present oversight function, merely ensure that ICANN fulfils its mandate properly. My response is as follows. One, the new IANA contract seeks a public interest justification for any root modification, and that directly puts IANA authourity holder - the US government - in a position of making judgements over what constitutes public interest, which is a much more unclear term, and open to subjective interpretations, than seeking adherence to international law and legally developed and communicated international policies etc. So, if your bottom line is - dont go beyond the current US oversight function, I am fine with it. But in our proposal, we are being clearer (and milder) than the current US oversight function is. It is not apparent that the theoretical approval of root changes ever actually resulted in USG "judgement" being given in any case, and that is a not a model that you want to emulate. Second, I understand it is already ICANN's self-defined mandate to work as per international law. Isnt it. We are just reinforcing it. I mean, it should be something higher than the ICANN's own authority to change this particualr mandate. They cant simply mandate themselves one day not to have to work as per international law. That should be resolved through the globalization and internationalization of ICANN's charter, and can be done in a manner that is durable and beyond revisiting. However, I am happy to change the language and role of the mandate of the proposed oversight board to keep it as close to the current oversight role as played by the US governemnt at present. we can put in an agreed text , at a general principle level say, that the role of the proposed global oversight board will be exactly as played by the US governemnt at present in its oversight authority. That that work for you. That's certainly a lot closer to my desire, in that it keeps the role clear and focused. Lastly, you have a objection to the secondary advisory role given to the same body (the proposed global oversight board) with regard to IETF and other technical standards bodies. We, the group that proposed this statement, strongly feel that the time has come that IETF kind of so called open processes have some kind of an institutional international advisory board that can regularly bring in public policy perspectives to such bodies. We are very clear that this role is indeed strictly advisory. This will also benefit the technical standards bodies a lot, and so forth. Advising the IETF, ICANN, RIRs, etc. on proper public policy mandates and norms is very important and I support such. However, that's not an "oversight" role, and doesn't have to be conflated with the same body. But for the present purpose, to get a consensus, we can entirely remove the advisory role for such a proposed body from the mandate. And just have a global oversight board with exactly the same mandate, role and authourity as is exercised by the UG government with regard to ICANN/ IANA function. We can just agree to this particular language. Why can't the Oversight Board have 24, 40 or 90 organizations participating, if indeed its mission to be provide oversight? Wouldn't we want nearly any government, civil society, or technical organization interested to be able to participate in reviewing ICANN's compliance to its mandate? Meanwhile however I do remember that you have regularly mentioned - and it appears in ARIN's response to WGEC as well - that technical community will want clearly laid out international law and public polices, at a relatively higher/ general level, and would welcome any effort in this direction. Absolutely. A global oversight board, constituted properly, and relatively insulated from political subversion, will be able to do precisely that. Otherwise the canvass of international law and pulbic policies can be too spread out and diffuse to make propoer sense to those invovled with day to day technical operations pertaining to the Internet. Oh really? If that's the case, then the canvass of international law and public policies needs to get its collective act together if we're expecting the Internet to recognize and conform to such... Note that the Internet is unlikely to function in the face of multiple overlapping and differing public policy mandates, and hence it is incumbent to have such public policy directives be as global (or close to global) as possible. The hard work of getting governments together to accomplish such is quite independent than the relatively easy goal of getting acceptance of the outcomes of such processes. In any case, a group that wishes to keep ICANN apprised of such does not need to be an oversight body to accomplish that goal, and it creates significant confusion in combining roles. A properly constituted and mandated oversight board would in fact do what you, and evidently, AIRN has been asking for - clear policy frameworks, but any policy body staying at more than an arms length from day to day operations. Such a pulbic policy interface is much better than say the ad hoc interventions like those done by GAC at present, completely dependent on the political muscle of the invovled country(ies) but with no clear documented legal/ policy basis. Agreed again, but the random thoughts of an appointed board on what they feel may or may not be applicable is not what is needed; what is need is governments start collectively making high-level and clear public policy mandates in this area, and noting the existence of such when apprised of policy development going on a specific area, so that it can be brought into the policy development process as a key input. This is really what should be happening with the GAC (receiving a report of new policy efforts in ICANN, and looking for any applicable mandate in their owns) but instead we've got the GAC->ICANN input having its own path into the policy development process. So that this proposed global oversight board does not abuse its authority, and works within its narrowly circumscribed role, its decisions should be subject to be appealed to with the Intenrational Court of Justice, which should set up a special bench for Internet issues of this kind. All this is easily plausible, given just a little political will. I'd like the only decisions out an oversight body to be one of two things: 1) ICANN is deficient in its mandate for a given registry (e.g. dns root) in the following manner ______ and need to comply within nn months, or 2) the oversight body has determined that specific registry should be delegated to a successor, once one is found and transition arrangements have been made. Perhaps it would be good to specify some "use cases" for your Oversight Board in a separate document? I suspect you have many more such cases for your form of Oversight Board than I... /John Disclaimers: My views alone. I hold myself forth as highly caffeinated Internet workaholic, and am willing to be audited and reviewed as such... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 9 04:48:33 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:18:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> Message-ID: <52551861.6090409@itforchange.net> John This is a very useful conversation and I'd like to continue - which I will do, on the side. Meanwhile, I am also looking at points that perhaps can fit a possible mutually agreed text that civil society can then propose to the technical community as a response to the Montevideo statement. In this regard: (1) Either you do not want an Oversight Body, whereby, as ICANN is rid of US' oversight, existing so called community oversight over ICANN is enough, . Is it so? In that case, the question is - what if the ICANN Board does something completely absurd and beyond its authority/ role? Today, the situation is that they will receive a 'nice' letter from NTIA - they know they will receive one, and therefore they tread carefully, which is the functioning oversight system at present. Take away the US oversight (as we agree we should do) and this system disappears. Are you ready to simply have no specific enforceable oversight at all over ICANN board after it severs its oversight relationship with the US gov (on which we have agreed)? (2) Or you are ready for an Oversight Body with a minimum role, which, as we seem to agree below, at this stage is to be stated in general terms to be exactly as that of the US government at present. In that case, we need to agree on some possible way to constitute this Oversight Body, by whatever name. I proposed a series of options that keeps it relatively free from political subversion but still effective enough to be able to carry out the functions it needs to carry out. You suggest below that it should be an open body that anyone can join in. Are you seriously suggesting that the oversight role should be done say through open elists, or whatever way everyone can join a body at will. Can you be clearer about what kind of a body are you proposing here? How does it function, decide things, communicate its decisions to ICANN, enforces them, and so on? And how is this kind of oversight different from what ICANN claims is already a set of community accountability processes that it has at present. Are you proposing a new set/ process/ body, or referring to the processes that already exists? (3) You seem to suggest below that IANA function/ authority of actual root changes could be done by ICANN directly rather than by a body that has oversight over it - which currently is the US gov. Well, we can agree to that. What this means is that unlike the pre facto oversight/ authority over root changes that US gov has at present, in the new oversight system is will only be post facto, if a clear violation of ICANN's declared processes / mandate can be shown to have happened in the process. I can agree to it. (Although as above I still need to understand what kind of body can actually carry out such post-facto role, and in which manner.) (4) Whether we agree on some body doing a narrow oversight over ICANN as ICANN gets truly globalised, or we just agree to a free-float ICANN with no oversight at all, but as an international body, we still need to agree on a few things (which I think are rather easier). These are - (a) ICANN gets incorporated under international law (How the statement of such law is reached, and under what protocols does then ICANN's incorporation proceed will need to be worked, and there are some international precedents. However, at present we can agree to the principle involved.) (b) ICANN makes a host country agreement with the US freeing it from all kinds of US jurisdictions - including those of US courts. (c) ICANN is made subject only to international jurisdiction, with appeal authority lying with International Court of Justice which creates a special bench for Internet matters.... Can we develop a statement incorporating these basic principles with some level of specificity regarding the needed institutional changes? Would the technical community be sympathetic to such an effort? parminder On Wednesday 09 October 2013 01:36 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 9, 2013, at 12:00 AM, parminder > > wrote: > >> John, >> >> Your principal issue with the Oversight Board we proposed is that - >> it seeks to ensure that ICANN works as per international law and >> legally developed policies, rather than, as you say is the present >> oversight function, merely ensure that ICANN fulfils its mandate >> properly. My response is as follows. >> >> One, the new IANA contract seeks a public interest justification for >> any root modification, and that directly puts IANA authourity holder >> - the US government - in a position of making judgements over what >> constitutes public interest, which is a much more unclear term, and >> open to subjective interpretations, than seeking adherence to >> international law and legally developed and communicated >> international policies etc. So, if your bottom line is - dont go >> beyond the current US oversight function, I am fine with it. But in >> our proposal, we are being clearer (and milder) than the current US >> oversight function is. > > It is not apparent that the theoretical approval of root changes ever > actually resulted > in USG "judgement" being given in any case, and that is a not a model > that you want > to emulate. > >> Second, I understand it is already ICANN's self-defined mandate to >> work as per international law. Isnt it. We are just reinforcing it. I >> mean, it should be something higher than the ICANN's own authority to >> change this particualr mandate. They cant simply mandate themselves >> one day not to have to work as per international law. > > That should be resolved through the globalization and > internationalization of ICANN's > charter, and can be done in a manner that is durable and beyond > revisiting. > >> However, I am happy to change the language and role of the mandate of >> the proposed oversight board to keep it as close to the current >> oversight role as played by the US governemnt at present. we can put >> in an agreed text , at a general principle level say, that the role >> of the proposed global oversight board will be exactly as played by >> the US governemnt at present in its oversight authority. That that >> work for you. > > That's certainly a lot closer to my desire, in that it keeps the role > clear and focused. > >> Lastly, you have a objection to the secondary advisory role given to >> the same body (the proposed global oversight board) with regard to >> IETF and other technical standards bodies. We, the group that >> proposed this statement, strongly feel that the time has come that >> IETF kind of so called open processes have some kind of an >> institutional international advisory board that can regularly bring >> in public policy perspectives to such bodies. We are very clear that >> this role is indeed strictly advisory. This will also benefit the >> technical standards bodies a lot, and so forth. > > Advising the IETF, ICANN, RIRs, etc. on proper public policy mandates > and norms > is very important and I support such. However, that's not an > "oversight" role, and > doesn't have to be conflated with the same body. > >> But for the present purpose, to get a consensus, we can entirely >> remove the advisory role for such a proposed body from the mandate. >> And just have a global oversight board with exactly the same mandate, >> role and authourity as is exercised by the UG government with regard >> to ICANN/ IANA function. We can just agree to this particular language. > > Why can't the Oversight Board have 24, 40 or 90 organizations > participating, if indeed > its mission to be provide oversight? Wouldn't we want nearly > any government, civil > society, or technical organization interested to be able to > participate in reviewing > ICANN's compliance to its mandate? > >> Meanwhile however I do remember that you have regularly mentioned - >> and it appears in ARIN's response to WGEC as well - that technical >> community will want clearly laid out international law and public >> polices, at a relatively higher/ general level, and would welcome any >> effort in this direction. > > Absolutely. > >> A global oversight board, constituted properly, and relatively >> insulated from political subversion, will be able to do precisely that. >> Otherwise the canvass of international law and pulbic policies can be >> too spread out and diffuse to make propoer sense to those invovled >> with day to day technical operations pertaining to the Internet. > > Oh really? If that's the case, then the canvass of international law > and public > policies needs to get its collective act together if we're expecting > the Internet > to recognize and conform to such... > > Note that the Internet is unlikely to function in the face of multiple > overlapping > and differing public policy mandates, and hence it is incumbent to > have such > public policy directives be as global (or close to global) as > possible. The hard > work of getting governments together to accomplish such is quite > independent > than the relatively easy goal of getting acceptance of the outcomes of > such > processes. > > In any case, a group that wishes to keep ICANN apprised of such does > not need > to be an oversight body to accomplish that goal, and it creates > significant confusion > in combining roles. > >> A properly constituted and mandated oversight board would in fact do >> what you, and evidently, AIRN has been asking for - clear policy >> frameworks, but any policy body staying at more than an arms length >> from day to day operations. Such a pulbic policy interface is much >> better than say the ad hoc interventions like those done by GAC at >> present, completely dependent on the political muscle of the invovled >> country(ies) but with no clear documented legal/ policy basis. > > Agreed again, but the random thoughts of an appointed board on what > they feel may > or may not be applicable is not what is needed; what is need is > governments start > collectively making high-level and clear public policy mandates in > this area, and noting > the existence of such when apprised of policy development going on a > specific area, > so that it can be brought into the policy development process as a key > input. This is > really what should be happening with the GAC (receiving a report of > new policy efforts > in ICANN, and looking for any applicable mandate in their owns) but > instead we've got > the GAC->ICANN input having its own path into the policy development > process. > >> So that this proposed global oversight board does not abuse its >> authority, and works within its narrowly circumscribed role, its >> decisions should be subject to be appealed to with the Intenrational >> Court of Justice, which should set up a special bench for Internet >> issues of this kind. All this is easily plausible, given just a >> little political will. > > I'd like the only decisions out an oversight body to be one of two > things: 1) ICANN > is deficient in its mandate for a given registry (e.g. dns root) in > the following > manner ______ and need to comply within nn months, or 2) the oversight > body has > determined that specific registry should be delegated to a successor, > once one is > found and transition arrangements have been made. > > Perhaps it would be good to specify some "use cases" for your > Oversight Board in > a separate document? I suspect you have many more such cases for your > form > of Oversight Board than I... > > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. I hold myself forth as > highly caffeinated Internet > workaholic, and am willing to be audited and reviewed as > such... > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 06:08:03 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:08:03 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 08:17:40 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:17:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:46 AM, parminder wrote: > > So, what about civil society groups making a statement welcoming the > Montevideo statement, I would be happy to see the IGC support the Montevideo Statement. especially its commitment to seeing some substantial > progress forward on globalisation of ICANN and IANA functions, and in this > context, 'we present the following proposal for the consideration and > support of the technical community'. > > The proposal would be made of some clear principles followed by specific > (though yet a bit higher level) institutional steps and processes for > globalisation of the ICANN and IANA. We can discuss these principles and > specific institutional changes on this list so that we have a statement that > is likely to be accepted by the technical community. If we haven't been able to agree during the last 8 years, I doubt we can find consensus now. Let's just support their views for now in hopes of building bridges. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 08:44:51 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:44:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <8ED90829-9A8B-431A-BAF5-282D0AC2B085@arin.net> <004754E1-4C4F-4552-85BD-6EF92C40C592@glocom.ac.jp> <5253D4E3.3090705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 08:49:08 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:49:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> Message-ID: At 01:50 09/10/2013, John Curran wrote: >"They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, > towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all > governments, > participate on an equal footing." > >It is a _call_, not a _proposal_ John, it is not a call for globalization, it is not a proposal for globalizing, it is a call for accelerating an existing hidden process. Is this wistle blowing? jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 09:53:15 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:53:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52555FCB.1020704@cafonso.ca> Not very clear at all, sorry. It seems people were a bit afraid to go further and ended up suggesting the messenger might be the culprit. Especially in a short, concise statement like that, and issuing a statement with such a big hat on, you guys should have paid more attention to this, sorry again. []s fraternos --c.a. On 10/08/2013 11:30 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > El 08/10/2013, a las 11:19, Carlos A. Afonso escribió: > >> This sentence is ambiguous: "They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring >> and surveillance." >> >> It seems the "leaders" are more concerned by the revelations of surveillance than by surveillance itself. > > > Carlos > > Maybe it is not the best wording, but I guess that it is very clear that what is a matter of concern is the surveillance and its impact in the trust and confidence, not the revelations. > > > Raúl > > >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> >> ------------ >> C. A. Afonso >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Ian Peter >> Date: 08-10-2013 02:51 (GMT-03:00) >> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? >> >> >> Its interesting to contrast this article with the Montevideo statement >> released a little bit later from the technical community. As regards >> criticisms of current internet governance structures, the technical >> community added >> >> " The leaders discussed the clear need to continually strengthen and evolve >> these mechanisms, in truly substantial ways, to be able to address emerging >> issues faced by stakeholders in the Internet." >> >> Note "in truly substantial ways" - that's not accidental text, but a >> recognition that significant change must take place. >> >> Also note the main statements from Montevideo, which were >> >> >> * They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, >> and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They >> expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of >> Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring >> and surveillance. >> >> *They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance >> challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the >> evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. >> >> *They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, >> towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, >> participate on an equal footing. >> >> (there was also a statement re IPv6) >> >> I mention these in this context because there appears to be a lot of common >> ground with the technical community now as regards some of the big >> priorities that must be addressed, and from this statement also a >> recognition that they must improve current mechanisms "in truly substantial >> ways". >> >> That's good news! There are things that should be criticised in current >> structures, but there is a growing opportunity to work with the technical >> community to address some major points of agreement. I hope that in our >> discussions of the various viewpoints which legitimately are part of our >> thinking on current structures we do not lose the opportunity to work >> closely with the technical community on some over riding policy issues on >> which we have substantial agreement. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> . >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:33 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". >> really? >> >> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/how-the-technical-community-fails-at-multi-stakeholderism >> >> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/web-consortiums-failures-show-limits-of-self-regulation >> >> forming a consensus that the usual splinter rump minority doesnt agree with >> emphatically does not constitute any sort of failure of multistakeholderism >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 09:56:27 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:56:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <59BD17CC-ACCC-4F8D-BAE7-830014D2236D@istaff.org> References: <49fs2wfb6t7al70ha8yn5t5v.1381242795316@email.android.com> <59BD17CC-ACCC-4F8D-BAE7-830014D2236D@istaff.org> Message-ID: <5255608B.2070501@cafonso.ca> Sorry, John, but Dilma uses the word "multilateral" to express "among nations", not just among governments, as her UN statement implies and as she has made clear in several subsequent statements (e.g, her weekly radio talk). She is far less black-and-white than many of us. Our problem is not our president, is the national telecom regulator, Anatel, a faithful subsidiary of the ITU (as usually most are). fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/08/2013 12:21 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 8, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> If they meant that, why not say it so? > > Well, so far you've heard myself, Raul, and Jari indicate it could have > been phrased better (statements developed by multiple organizations > sometimes suffer in the editing.) > >> Dilma was far more courageous... ;) > > Really? By calling for _multilateral_ framework for governance and use > of the Internet? Isn't that fairly routine position for governments to take? > "The history of the twentieth century shows that forsaking multilateralism > is a prelude to wars and the consequent human misery and devastation." > (Dilma Rousseff - 24 Sept 2013) > > I'm not certain that advocating for the centuries-old model of "governments > dealing with other governments" for the resolution of problems is exactly > a bold and courageous approach. (I'd really like to believe that she meant > multistakeholder, but the seven uses of the word "multilateral" plus the > above quote do make that a little difficult...) > > We desperately need an updated model for Internet collaboration which > provides for government participation, while at the same time protecting > the voices of civil society and the private/technical/business sector. This > is not easy - we know that private sector alone doesn't necessarily lead to > full consideration of public policy issues; we know that government and > private sector can actually be worse in that aspect. Governments talking > to governments (multi-lateral) also is problematic, although we have begun > to see tangible progress with multi-stakeholder involvement in some of these > institutions following the Internet community lead. The question before us > is whether we can maintain the openness and participatory governance > aspects of present Internet coordination (although to date private sector-led) > as governments become more involved, all while formalizing structures for > civil society participation. We have some advantages, as the Internet itself > provides collaboration tools that previously did not exist (remote participation, > collaborating editing/wikis, distributed polling, etc.) but we're still entering > uncharted territory and there is enormous pressure to get this right. > > /John > > Disclaimers: My own views. Yes, this is hard, that's why its called "work". > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 10:46:55 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:46:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <52555FCB.1020704@cafonso.ca> References: <52555FCB.1020704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Not very clear at all, sorry. It seems people were a bit afraid to go > further and ended up suggesting the messenger might be the culprit. Speaking of which: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131008_speaking_up_for_the_internet/ -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dmitry.epstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 10:53:51 2013 From: dmitry.epstein at gmail.com (Dmitry Epstein) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 10:53:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] Giganet 2013 FINAL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Please see attached final program for the 8th annual symposium of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network. The symposium takes place one day before the IGF starts and is in the same venue. The program is also available at: http://giga-net.org/page/2013-annual-symposium Best, Dmitry ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Paul Laprise Date: Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:16 AM Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] Giganet 2013 FINAL To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at listserv.syr.edu Hi everyone,**** ** ** For all of you attending and looking on, here is the final program for this year’s symposium. I am still working on adding additional speakers in the afternoon and would like to get a vigorous discussion in the two joint panels with apc. Any additional input would be welcome.**** ** ** See you in Bali!**** ** ** John**** ** ** ** ** Best regards,**** ** ** *John Laprise, Ph.D.* * * Assistant Professor of Communication in Residence**** Northwestern University in Qatar **** Northwestern University **** ** ** ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Giganet 2013 FINAL.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 82308 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Oct 9 10:58:12 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:58:12 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <422D0C8F-F156-45AD-87AD-DB5027C37FCA@arin.net> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:08 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > The Montevideo statement is not by the technical community but an attempt at radical monopoly by the statUS-quo technical bodies without consensus of their participants and members. > ... I can only speak for ARIN, but our member-elected Board approved the statement, as it is based on positions that we have publicly taken previously and discussed with our membership. > Sorry, John, but who pays the piper calls the tune. The users pay. We will certainly hear you, but please do not pull our leg with Montevideo wanting to free ICANN from the USG. ICANN is "freely" committed to the same strategy and interests as the USG because "this is the best for the internet". BTW this may be partly true: the statUS-quo, that Montevideo builds upon, needs to transition but has to make it in good order. ICANN has shown many times it is not ready yet for such a change, even along its own rules (cf. ICP-3). Nor the NRO (when do you plan an ITU/NRO multistakeholder UN oversight of the world's digital addressing plans?). JFC - I'd be happy to discuss your concerns, but truly can't discern what exactly they are from the above... One point I do note is that you suggest that the signing organizations are effectively "pulling your leg" in wanting to free ICANN from the USG. The signing organizations did call for "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." I know this position to be true with respect to ARIN, and note that during the Feb 2011 NTIA IANA NOI, we (and the other RIRs) are on record with the general position that "no government should have a special role in managing, regulating or supervising the IANA functions." FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 11:40:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:40:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Internet Policy] Government legalises spying on Zimbabwe Citizens Message-ID: <0d5201cec505$e0733cc0$a159b640$@gmail.com> From: internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Ryan Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 8:24 AM To: Internetpolicy at Elists. Isoc. Org Subject: [Internet Policy] Zimbabwe Government legalises spying on Zimbabwe Citizens 2 October 2013 | All Africa A government spy program will now monitor phone calls, text, email and the details will be kept in a national database for use on demand by the state security agencies. Under a new government regulation gazetted last week Friday, authorities will order broadband providers, landline and mobile phone companies to save the information for up to five years. ...Full story ------ patrick ryan public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 9 12:05:01 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:05:01 -0700 Subject: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) In-Reply-To: <52551861.6090409@itforchange.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> <52551861.6090409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4BE8202E-68DE-46EB-BE2F-BB171CEAC757@istaff.org> On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:48 AM, parminder wrote: > John > > This is a very useful conversation and I'd like to continue - which I will do, on the side. Meanwhile, I am also looking at points that perhaps can fit a possible mutually agreed text that civil society can then propose to the technical community as a response to the Montevideo statement. > > In this regard: > > (1) Either you do not want an Oversight Body, whereby, as ICANN is rid of US' oversight, existing so called community oversight over ICANN is enough, . Is it so? In that case, the question is - what if the ICANN Board does something completely absurd and beyond its authority/ role? Today, the situation is that they will receive a 'nice' letter from NTIA - they know they will receive one, and therefore they tread carefully, which is the functioning oversight system at present. Take away the US oversight (as we agree we should do) and this system disappears. Are you ready to simply have no specific enforceable oversight at all over ICANN board after it severs its oversight relationship with the US gov (on which we have agreed)? > > (2) Or you are ready for an Oversight Body with a minimum role, which, as we seem to agree below, at this stage is to be stated in general terms to be exactly as that of the US government at present. In that case, we need to agree on some possible way to constitute this Oversight Body, by whatever name. I proposed a series of options that keeps it relatively free from political subversion but still effective enough to be able to carry out the functions it needs to carry out. You suggest below that it should be an open body that anyone can join in. Are you seriously suggesting that the oversight role should be done say through open elists, or whatever way everyone can join a body at will. Can you be clearer about what kind of a body are you proposing here? How does it function, decide things, communicate its decisions to ICANN, enforces them, and so on? And how is this kind of oversight different from what ICANN claims is already a set of community accountability processes that it has at present. Are you proposing a new set/ process/ body, or referring to the processes that already exists? Parminder - I can weigh in on this, but first must make clear that the views I express are very much my own personal views (i.e. the ARIN Board/membership has not discussed, so ARIN has no position at all.) I believe that the global community needs to be able to frankly discuss performance (and any failed expectations) of any organization which coordinates key components of the Internet infrastructure, and to do so in a very open, very brightly lit public forum. These organizations perform a crucial role in success of the Internet, and assert to meet virtuous principles such openness, transparency, inclusiveness, balanced/equal participation, broad consensus, etc. The role of an Oversight Body, in my personal opinion, should be to allow everyone to participate in discussion of these key organizations performance these values in a maximally transparent forum which utilizes online mechanisms (e.g. mailing lists, wikis, video/teleconferences) along with periodic in-person meetings. I further believe that such a forum should operate under maximal openness and transparency itself (quite important given its role) and therefore it simply cannot exclude participants. I actually see this as a very important protection, one necessary so that all parties (particularly civil society) know that organizations critical to the Internet effectively report to the entire Internet... I believe that an extremely well-defined role needs to be defined for such an Oversight Body, and it should be chartered to review audit reports from the key Internet policy and standards organizations regarding their performance against their open/transparent asserted principles, to commission independent reviews of the same, to frankly discuss the results of such audits and reports publicly with the organizations under review. I believe that the Oversight Body must be able to recommend changes to practices, and require participating organizations to response publicly and in writing to such requests and any related followup. Finally, I believe such an Oversight Body must, as a measure of last resort, be able to recommend that an organization asserting to be administrating critical Internet resources via the multistakeholder principles but found chronically negligent (and without credible plan for resolution) should no longer administer such resources; such a recommendation is to be considered by relevant authorities so that plans for redelegation can be arranged. > (3) You seem to suggest below that IANA function/ authority of actual root changes could be done by ICANN directly rather than by a body that has oversight over it - which currently is the US gov. Well, we can agree to that. What this means is that unlike the pre facto oversight/ authority over root changes that US gov has at present, in the new oversight system is will only be post facto, if a clear violation of ICANN's declared processes / mandate can be shown to have happened in the process. I can agree to it. (Although as above I still need to understand what kind of body can actually carry out such post-facto role, and in which manner.) I hope I have outlined my views regarding an Oversight Body. It does not reverse or alter any policy development or implementation decisions, but chronic failures in proper performance instead lead to a recommendation of loss of the role of administering critical Internet resources (a very significant consequence) You'll note that this same Oversight Body could apply to entities further down the chain than just IANA, e.g. ARIN, a delegated competitive or cooperative TLD, etc. That was quite intentional, I believe that the task of making sure that organizations (who are administrating critical Internet resources) are actually upholding their claims of openness applies at many layers of the model (but obviously lies beyond the scope of a discussion purely about transitioning IANA function oversight...) > (4) Whether we agree on some body doing a narrow oversight over ICANN as ICANN gets truly globalised, or we just agree to a free-float ICANN with no oversight at all, but as an international body, we still need to agree on a few things (which I think are rather easier). These are - (a) ICANN gets incorporated under international law (How the statement of such law is reached, and under what protocols does then ICANN's incorporation proceed will need to be worked, and there are some international precedents. However, at present we can agree to the principle involved.) (b) ICANN makes a host country agreement with the US freeing it from all kinds of US jurisdictions - including those of US courts. (c) ICANN is made subject only to international jurisdiction, with appeal authority lying with International Court of Justice which creates a special bench for Internet matters.... I am no expert in such matter, but believe that all of the above make imminent sense. > Can we develop a statement incorporating these basic principles with some level of specificity regarding the needed institutional changes? Would the technical community be sympathetic to such an effort? Very challenging situation... you have organizations which recognize concerns with the present USG oversight model, but that does not imply coherence or vision regarding what should take its place. I'm happy to provide you my personal insights on what I believe is necessary but must warn you to consider purely from an principled-based discussion not as any form of political value, i.e. by incorporation of such views that you might bring more organizations in support of single banner. Until ARIN's members and Board have a chance to discuss the situation, I do not even know if my unique perspectives will appear in any form of the positions ARIN takes going forward. Best wishes, /John Disclaimers: See above, first paragraph, last paragraph - definitely my views alone; sole value of such views is limited to the sum of constituent electrons. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 12:45:53 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:45:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52555FCB.1020704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: At 16:46 09/10/2013, McTim wrote: >On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Not very clear at all, sorry. It seems people were a bit afraid to go > > further and ended up suggesting the messenger might be the culprit. >Speaking of which: >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131008_speaking_up_for_the_internet/ The response to this pertinent note seems to be that there is only one kind of credible spokeperson that can be accepted: the technically competent civil society doer. http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Oct 9 12:54:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:24:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52555FCB.1020704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <670C2A39-29BC-4BDD-83C7-6565775D7D29@hserus.net> Somewhat a mythical creature, that. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Oct-2013, at 22:15, JFC Morfin wrote: > > At 16:46 09/10/2013, McTim wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > Not very clear at all, sorry. It seems people were a bit afraid to go >> > further and ended up suggesting the messenger might be the culprit. >> Speaking of which: >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131008_speaking_up_for_the_internet/ > > The response to this pertinent note seems to be that there is only one kind of credible spokeperson that can be accepted: the technically competent civil society doer. > http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations. > jfc > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Oct 9 17:17:31 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:17:31 +1100 Subject: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) In-Reply-To: <4BE8202E-68DE-46EB-BE2F-BB171CEAC757@istaff.org> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> <52551861.6090409@itforchange.net> <4BE8202E-68DE-46EB-BE2F-BB171CEAC757@istaff.org> Message-ID: I think discussion might be useful as long as there is no expectation that it will result in one unified position on these questions, or a single approach that will have universal approval. What I would like to see is a mechanism to discuss these specific reforms, perhaps just between civil society and technical community at this stage, but perhaps a little broader. It would need to involve ICANN and USA government at some stage. But prior to that perhaps some kind of small group could work on these specific issues to try and find a workable position to advance. It would be important to have a specific narrow focus for the group – if it starts to address everything wrong with internet governance, cybercrime and cyberespionage etc it will probably not achieve much in the short term (not that these wider issues are not important). For me – I agree with Parminder and John that the US government role as regards IANA function does not need to be replaced by another body – it just needs to be wound up. This is an area where we might get broad agreement. As regards the wider oversight function – I dont personally think it can be resolved without a serious look at ICANN reform, and specifically the role of GAC. Some structural change might be a good way to begin addressing concerns there. Given that that might take some time, it might make tactical sense to concentrate some specific efforts on the phasing out of the US government role as regards IANA function. That might be an achievable quick win that would also draw support from other stakeholder groups. Ian Peter From: John Curran Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 3:05 AM To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:48 AM, parminder wrote: John This is a very useful conversation and I'd like to continue - which I will do, on the side. Meanwhile, I am also looking at points that perhaps can fit a possible mutually agreed text that civil society can then propose to the technical community as a response to the Montevideo statement. In this regard: (1) Either you do not want an Oversight Body, whereby, as ICANN is rid of US' oversight, existing so called community oversight over ICANN is enough, . Is it so? In that case, the question is - what if the ICANN Board does something completely absurd and beyond its authority/ role? Today, the situation is that they will receive a 'nice' letter from NTIA - they know they will receive one, and therefore they tread carefully, which is the functioning oversight system at present. Take away the US oversight (as we agree we should do) and this system disappears. Are you ready to simply have no specific enforceable oversight at all over ICANN board after it severs its oversight relationship with the US gov (on which we have agreed)? (2) Or you are ready for an Oversight Body with a minimum role, which, as we seem to agree below, at this stage is to be stated in general terms to be exactly as that of the US government at present. In that case, we need to agree on some possible way to constitute this Oversight Body, by whatever name. I proposed a series of options that keeps it relatively free from political subversion but still effective enough to be able to carry out the functions it needs to carry out. You suggest below that it should be an open body that anyone can join in. Are you seriously suggesting that the oversight role should be done say through open elists, or whatever way everyone can join a body at will. Can you be clearer about what kind of a body are you proposing here? How does it function, decide things, communicate its decisions to ICANN, enforces them, and so on? And how is this kind of oversight different from what ICANN claims is already a set of community accountability processes that it has at present. Are you proposing a new set/ process/ body, or referring to the processes that already exists? Parminder - I can weigh in on this, but first must make clear that the views I express are very much my own personal views (i.e. the ARIN Board/membership has not discussed, so ARIN has no position at all.) I believe that the global community needs to be able to frankly discuss performance (and any failed expectations) of any organization which coordinates key components of the Internet infrastructure, and to do so in a very open, very brightly lit public forum. These organizations perform a crucial role in success of the Internet, and assert to meet virtuous principles such openness, transparency, inclusiveness, balanced/equal participation, broad consensus, etc. The role of an Oversight Body, in my personal opinion, should be to allow everyone to participate in discussion of these key organizations performance these values in a maximally transparent forum which utilizes online mechanisms (e.g. mailing lists, wikis, video/teleconferences) along with periodic in-person meetings. I further believe that such a forum should operate under maximal openness and transparency itself (quite important given its role) and therefore it simply cannot exclude participants. I actually see this as a very important protection, one necessary so that all parties (particularly civil society) know that organizations critical to the Internet effectively report to the entire Internet... I believe that an extremely well-defined role needs to be defined for such an Oversight Body, and it should be chartered to review audit reports from the key Internet policy and standards organizations regarding their performance against their open/transparent asserted principles, to commission independent reviews of the same, to frankly discuss the results of such audits and reports publicly with the organizations under review. I believe that the Oversight Body must be able to recommend changes to practices, and require participating organizations to response publicly and in writing to such requests and any related followup. Finally, I believe such an Oversight Body must, as a measure of last resort, be able to recommend that an organization asserting to be administrating critical Internet resources via the multistakeholder principles but found chronically negligent (and without credible plan for resolution) should no longer administer such resources; such a recommendation is to be considered by relevant authorities so that plans for redelegation can be arranged. (3) You seem to suggest below that IANA function/ authority of actual root changes could be done by ICANN directly rather than by a body that has oversight over it - which currently is the US gov. Well, we can agree to that. What this means is that unlike the pre facto oversight/ authority over root changes that US gov has at present, in the new oversight system is will only be post facto, if a clear violation of ICANN's declared processes / mandate can be shown to have happened in the process. I can agree to it. (Although as above I still need to understand what kind of body can actually carry out such post-facto role, and in which manner.) I hope I have outlined my views regarding an Oversight Body. It does not reverse or alter any policy development or implementation decisions, but chronic failures in proper performance instead lead to a recommendation of loss of the role of administering critical Internet resources (a very significant consequence) You'll note that this same Oversight Body could apply to entities further down the chain than just IANA, e.g. ARIN, a delegated competitive or cooperative TLD, etc. That was quite intentional, I believe that the task of making sure that organizations (who are administrating critical Internet resources) are actually upholding their claims of openness applies at many layers of the model (but obviously lies beyond the scope of a discussion purely about transitioning IANA function oversight...) (4) Whether we agree on some body doing a narrow oversight over ICANN as ICANN gets truly globalised, or we just agree to a free-float ICANN with no oversight at all, but as an international body, we still need to agree on a few things (which I think are rather easier). These are - (a) ICANN gets incorporated under international law (How the statement of such law is reached, and under what protocols does then ICANN's incorporation proceed will need to be worked, and there are some international precedents. However, at present we can agree to the principle involved.) (b) ICANN makes a host country agreement with the US freeing it from all kinds of US jurisdictions - including those of US courts. (c) ICANN is made subject only to international jurisdiction, with appeal authority lying with International Court of Justice which creates a special bench for Internet matters.... I am no expert in such matter, but believe that all of the above make imminent sense. Can we develop a statement incorporating these basic principles with some level of specificity regarding the needed institutional changes? Would the technical community be sympathetic to such an effort? Very challenging situation... you have organizations which recognize concerns with the present USG oversight model, but that does not imply coherence or vision regarding what should take its place. I'm happy to provide you my personal insights on what I believe is necessary but must warn you to consider purely from an principled-based discussion not as any form of political value, i.e. by incorporation of such views that you might bring more organizations in support of single banner. Until ARIN's members and Board have a chance to discuss the situation, I do not even know if my unique perspectives will appear in any form of the positions ARIN takes going forward. Best wishes, /John Disclaimers: See above, first paragraph, last paragraph - definitely my views alone; sole value of such views is limited to the sum of constituent electrons. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 9 17:20:28 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:20:28 +0000 Subject: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> <52551861.6090409@itforchange.net> <4BE8202E-68DE-46EB-BE2F-BB171CEAC757@istaff.org>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283CC7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:17 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran Subject: Re: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) I think discussion might be useful as long as there is no expectation that it will result in one unified position on these questions, or a single approach that will have universal approval. What I would like to see is a mechanism to discuss these specific reforms, perhaps just between civil society and technical community at this stage, but perhaps a little broader. It would need to involve ICANN and USA government at some stage. But prior to that perhaps some kind of small group could work on these specific issues to try and find a workable position to advance. It would be important to have a specific narrow focus for the group – if it starts to address everything wrong with internet governance, cybercrime and cyberespionage etc it will probably not achieve much in the short term (not that these wider issues are not important). For me – I agree with Parminder and John that the US government role as regards IANA function does not need to be replaced by another body – it just needs to be wound up. This is an area where we might get broad agreement. As regards the wider oversight function – I dont personally think it can be resolved without a serious look at ICANN reform, and specifically the role of GAC. Some structural change might be a good way to begin addressing concerns there. Given that that might take some time, it might make tactical sense to concentrate some specific efforts on the phasing out of the US government role as regards IANA function. That might be an achievable quick win that would also draw support from other stakeholder groups. Ian Peter From: John Curran Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 3:05 AM To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:48 AM, parminder > wrote: John This is a very useful conversation and I'd like to continue - which I will do, on the side. Meanwhile, I am also looking at points that perhaps can fit a possible mutually agreed text that civil society can then propose to the technical community as a response to the Montevideo statement. In this regard: (1) Either you do not want an Oversight Body, whereby, as ICANN is rid of US' oversight, existing so called community oversight over ICANN is enough, . Is it so? In that case, the question is - what if the ICANN Board does something completely absurd and beyond its authority/ role? Today, the situation is that they will receive a 'nice' letter from NTIA - they know they will receive one, and therefore they tread carefully, which is the functioning oversight system at present. Take away the US oversight (as we agree we should do) and this system disappears. Are you ready to simply have no specific enforceable oversight at all over ICANN board after it severs its oversight relationship with the US gov (on which we have agreed)? (2) Or you are ready for an Oversight Body with a minimum role, which, as we seem to agree below, at this stage is to be stated in general terms to be exactly as that of the US government at present. In that case, we need to agree on some possible way to constitute this Oversight Body, by whatever name. I proposed a series of options that keeps it relatively free from political subversion but still effective enough to be able to carry out the functions it needs to carry out. You suggest below that it should be an open body that anyone can join in. Are you seriously suggesting that the oversight role should be done say through open elists, or whatever way everyone can join a body at will. Can you be clearer about what kind of a body are you proposing here? How does it function, decide things, communicate its decisions to ICANN, enforces them, and so on? And how is this kind of oversight different from what ICANN claims is already a set of community accountability processes that it has at present. Are you proposing a new set/ process/ body, or referring to the processes that already exists? Parminder - I can weigh in on this, but first must make clear that the views I express are very much my own personal views (i.e. the ARIN Board/membership has not discussed, so ARIN has no position at all.) I believe that the global community needs to be able to frankly discuss performance (and any failed expectations) of any organization which coordinates key components of the Internet infrastructure, and to do so in a very open, very brightly lit public forum. These organizations perform a crucial role in success of the Internet, and assert to meet virtuous principles such openness, transparency, inclusiveness, balanced/equal participation, broad consensus, etc. The role of an Oversight Body, in my personal opinion, should be to allow everyone to participate in discussion of these key organizations performance these values in a maximally transparent forum which utilizes online mechanisms (e.g. mailing lists, wikis, video/teleconferences) along with periodic in-person meetings. I further believe that such a forum should operate under maximal openness and transparency itself (quite important given its role) and therefore it simply cannot exclude participants. I actually see this as a very important protection, one necessary so that all parties (particularly civil society) know that organizations critical to the Internet effectively report to the entire Internet... I believe that an extremely well-defined role needs to be defined for such an Oversight Body, and it should be chartered to review audit reports from the key Internet policy and standards organizations regarding their performance against their open/transparent asserted principles, to commission independent reviews of the same, to frankly discuss the results of such audits and reports publicly with the organizations under review. I believe that the Oversight Body must be able to recommend changes to practices, and require participating organizations to response publicly and in writing to such requests and any related followup. Finally, I believe such an Oversight Body must, as a measure of last resort, be able to recommend that an organization asserting to be administrating critical Internet resources via the multistakeholder principles but found chronically negligent (and without credible plan for resolution) should no longer administer such resources; such a recommendation is to be considered by relevant authorities so that plans for redelegation can be arranged. (3) You seem to suggest below that IANA function/ authority of actual root changes could be done by ICANN directly rather than by a body that has oversight over it - which currently is the US gov. Well, we can agree to that. What this means is that unlike the pre facto oversight/ authority over root changes that US gov has at present, in the new oversight system is will only be post facto, if a clear violation of ICANN's declared processes / mandate can be shown to have happened in the process. I can agree to it. (Although as above I still need to understand what kind of body can actually carry out such post-facto role, and in which manner.) I hope I have outlined my views regarding an Oversight Body. It does not reverse or alter any policy development or implementation decisions, but chronic failures in proper performance instead lead to a recommendation of loss of the role of administering critical Internet resources (a very significant consequence) You'll note that this same Oversight Body could apply to entities further down the chain than just IANA, e.g. ARIN, a delegated competitive or cooperative TLD, etc. That was quite intentional, I believe that the task of making sure that organizations (who are administrating critical Internet resources) are actually upholding their claims of openness applies at many layers of the model (but obviously lies beyond the scope of a discussion purely about transitioning IANA function oversight...) (4) Whether we agree on some body doing a narrow oversight over ICANN as ICANN gets truly globalised, or we just agree to a free-float ICANN with no oversight at all, but as an international body, we still need to agree on a few things (which I think are rather easier). These are - (a) ICANN gets incorporated under international law (How the statement of such law is reached, and under what protocols does then ICANN's incorporation proceed will need to be worked, and there are some international precedents. However, at present we can agree to the principle involved.) (b) ICANN makes a host country agreement with the US freeing it from all kinds of US jurisdictions - including those of US courts. (c) ICANN is made subject only to international jurisdiction, with appeal authority lying with International Court of Justice which creates a special bench for Internet matters.... I am no expert in such matter, but believe that all of the above make imminent sense. Can we develop a statement incorporating these basic principles with some level of specificity regarding the needed institutional changes? Would the technical community be sympathetic to such an effort? Very challenging situation... you have organizations which recognize concerns with the present USG oversight model, but that does not imply coherence or vision regarding what should take its place. I'm happy to provide you my personal insights on what I believe is necessary but must warn you to consider purely from an principled-based discussion not as any form of political value, i.e. by incorporation of such views that you might bring more organizations in support of single banner. Until ARIN's members and Board have a chance to discuss the situation, I do not even know if my unique perspectives will appear in any form of the positions ARIN takes going forward. Best wishes, /John Disclaimers: See above, first paragraph, last paragraph - definitely my views alone; sole value of such views is limited to the sum of constituent electrons. ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 17:46:09 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:46:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Message-ID: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Agência Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Agência Brasil -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Oct 9 17:59:03 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:59:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red interrogation mark on our visualization map? http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be connected. On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we > can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going > through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies within the > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma > agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and > with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in > Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados > no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no > Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Oct 9 18:02:35 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:02:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> Hi, Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? Wow! avri On 9 Oct 2013, at 17:46, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we > can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going > through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies within the > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma > agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and > with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in > Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados > no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no > Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 18:07:10 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:07:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> EXCELLENT! CONGRATULATIONS TO BRAZIL FOR STEPPING UP AND SHOWING THE NECESSARY LEADERSHIP! NOW WE MUST SET TO WORK TO HELP DESIGN THE WORLD/INTERNET WE WANT! M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 2:46 PM To: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; NCSG List; BestBits List Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35 107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Agência Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Agência Brasil -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 18:16:24 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:16:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] video: Fadi talks about his meeting with Dilma Message-ID: <5255D5B8.80909@cafonso.ca> This interview with the president of Icann was recorded minutes after his meeting between President Rousseff today: http://blog.planalto.gov.br/brasil-vai-sediar-encontro-mundial-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-2014/ In English of course, with subtitles in Brazilian Portuguese. fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Oct 9 18:22:26 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:22:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: H. Touré, among other, shall be unhappy... Interesting times... and a LOT of work in the way forward.. On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > EXCELLENT! > > CONGRATULATIONS TO BRAZIL FOR STEPPING UP AND SHOWING THE NECESSARY > LEADERSHIP! > > NOW WE MUST SET TO WORK TO HELP DESIGN THE WORLD/INTERNET WE WANT! > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 2:46 PM > To: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; NCSG List; BestBits > List > Subject: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on > Internet governance in 2014 > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35 > 107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), > Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from > different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this > issue, > after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General > Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the > Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, > and > expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the > fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been > broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his > proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, > Petrobras > and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to > elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get > together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. > The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage > the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights > Framework > for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in > the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin > this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the > Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United > Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, > who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to > participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the > management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend > the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must > work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that > changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the > participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must > not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the > free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the > president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias > para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da > Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla > em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir > líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da > 68ª > Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo > ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita > coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam > com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à > internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua > proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta > que > elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos > possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos > sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras > decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base > os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa > por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações > Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos > técnicos, > que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o > presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar > do > debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da > internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem > também > participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual > precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma > concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma > multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a > internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, > políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O > ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em > abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 9 18:30:08 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:30:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process assessment. Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red interrogation mark on our visualization map? http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be connected. On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Agência Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Agência Brasil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Oct 9 18:31:40 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:31:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] video: Fadi talks about his meeting with Dilma II Message-ID: <5255D94C.8070105@cafonso.ca> I meant "his meeting *with* President Rousseff", of course... :) --c.a. ============================ This interview with the president of Icann was recorded minutes after his meeting between President Rousseff today: http://blog.planalto.gov.br/brasil-vai-sediar-encontro-mundial-sobre-governanca-da-internet-em-2014/ In English of course, with subtitles in Brazilian Portuguese. fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 9 18:33:05 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:33:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can participate on an equal footing... /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Oct 9 18:34:43 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:34:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting > moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference > those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms > of prior phases. > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President > will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the > new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process > assessment. > > Lee > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Joana Varon [ > joana at varonferraz.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > NCSG List > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world > event on Internet governance in 2014 > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red > interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 > process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 > meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event > after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if > both processes will be connected. > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> [sorry for possible duplicate posts] >> >> Dear people >> >> Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the >> official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's >> President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. >> >> The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 >> >> Brazil will host world event on Internet governance >> >> From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 >> >> Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to >> Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in >> English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global >> leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. >> >> According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this >> issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th >> UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world >> heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with >> great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the >> world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the >> Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was >> the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. >> >> Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of >> Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, >> Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the >> president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we >> can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are >> equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on >> how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of >> the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going >> through the National Congress. >> >> Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo >> Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes >> in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should >> begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of >> the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the >> government. >> >> "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active >> participation by governments, their respective agencies within the >> United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the >> technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. >> For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need >> to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out >> the management of the Internet infrastructure. >> >> The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also >> attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which >> we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma >> agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and >> with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said >> that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to >> interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the >> suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in >> Rio de Janeiro. >> >> Source : Agência Brazil >> >> -------- original in pt-br ------------- >> >> O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças >> necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o >> presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números >> (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff >> concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados >> no tema. >> >> De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta >> questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da >> 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O >> mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, >> com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo >> mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que >> temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma >> foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. >> >> Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de >> autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a >> Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta >> que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que >> todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em >> que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as >> futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem >> ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no >> Congresso Nacional. >> >> Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo >> Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre >> mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem >> começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da >> internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. >> >> “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação >> ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das >> Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, >> dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu >> Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais >> precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a >> gestão da infraestrutura da internet. >> >> O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem >> também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família >> com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a >> presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem >> ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores >> que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que >> interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre >> circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta >> é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. >> >> fonte: Agência Brasil >> > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 19:01:00 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:01:00 +0200 Subject: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> <52551861.6090409@itforchange.net> <4BE8202E-68DE-46EB-BE2F-BB171CEAC757@istaff.org> Message-ID: At 23:17 09/10/2013, Ian Peter wrote: >What I would like to see is a mechanism to discuss these specific >reforms, perhaps just between civil society and technical community >at this stage, but perhaps a little broader. Correct. There is a very simple reason for that. It is that lawyers, politicians, and merchants do not technically scale to what could be supplied to match what should be demanded. The risk the statUS-quo pseudoMS Montevideo people fear is that Govts could multilateraly (an ITU digital infrastructure) support their lead users, i.e. digital society people who are technically able to intelligently use the internet resources without bothering about the so called "internet governance" :-) Cheers. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 19:21:49 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:21:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Keep cool [was: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014] In-Reply-To: <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> Message-ID: At 00:02 10/10/2013, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, >Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN >has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and >unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of >the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? keep cool. More importantly, "The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work". It is the statUS-quo pseudoMS family vs. the UN WSIS (i.e. Montevideo-signatorees to counter the Dubai-signatorees). One could call this the Snowden devil trap :-) Telcos on an equal footing now with Govs, ICANN, ISOC and RIRs. Multilateral was the word, wasn't it? Will Anatel host the conference? jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 19:40:31 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:40:31 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: <422D0C8F-F156-45AD-87AD-DB5027C37FCA@arin.net> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> <422D0C8F-F156-45AD-87AD-DB5027C37FCA@arin.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Oct 9 19:45:09 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:45:09 +0000 Subject: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) In-Reply-To: <20131009230147.1C5F344F975@mail-14-pao.dyndns.com> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> <52551861.6090409@itforchange.net> <4BE8202E-68DE-46EB-BE2F-BB171CEAC757@istaff.org> <20131009230147.1C5F344F975@mail-14-pao.dyndns.com> Message-ID: <4D04E397-08C5-4AA3-B890-99873A3DBB33@arin.net> On Oct 9, 2013, at 4:01 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Correct. There is a very simple reason for that. It is that lawyers, politicians, and merchants do not technically scale to what could be supplied to match what should be demanded. The risk the statUS-quo pseudoMS Montevideo people fear is that Govts could multilateraly (an ITU digital infrastructure) support their lead users, i.e. digital society people who are technically able to intelligently use the internet resources without bothering about the so called "internet governance" :-) JFC - I don't know if your phrase "the statUS-quo pseudoMS Montevideo people fear..." is actually a reference to ARIN, but on the assumption that it is, I can actually make quite plain what the ARIN community "fears" are with respect to evolution of Internet governance structures. We have discussed potential changes in the present model at our member meetings, and the concerns raised (indeed, with respect to any potential government multilateral action) are the resulting risks to: " - Continued innovation and evolution of the Internet - Open and inclusive contributions to policy debates - Consensus-based Internet number resource policies - User access, stability, and security " See ARIN website, center box See also The ARIN community is _not_ confident that a government multilateral solution can provide for administration of critical Internet resources without endangering flexibility and innovation on the Internet, and nor that a government-led change would actually provide for open, transparent and consensus-based policy development. I have no objections to your noting the concerns in that ARIN community that might come out of a government-led change, but do ask that you characterize their actual fears correctly. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Oct 9 20:06:44 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:06:44 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> <422D0C8F-F156-45AD-87AD-DB5027C37FCA@arin.net> Message-ID: On Oct 9, 2013, at 4:40 PM, JFC Morfin > wrote: At 16:58 09/10/2013, John Curran wrote: > The Montevideo statement is not by the technical community but an attempt at radical monopoly by the statUS-quo technical bodies without consensus of their participants and members. I can only speak for ARIN, but our member-elected Board approved the statement, as it is based on positions that we have publicly taken previously and discussed with our membership. No doubt about it. However, that does not mean that your approving membership is to be identified with a so-called "technical community". I did not identify them as the "technical community", but was only correcting your insinuation that we lacked the support of our membership. JFC - I'd be happy to discuss your concerns, but truly can't discern what exactly they are from the above... One point I do note is that you suggest that the signing organizations are effectively "pulling your leg" in wanting to free ICANN from the USG. I have no concerns. I thought you were concerned about the authenticity of the call for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, and I was only responding to such - my error. In any case, we are already seeing evidence of such acceleration, which in and of itself makes the point. Thanks! /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 9 20:59:36 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:59:36 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really? In-Reply-To: References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254EDA8.7060904@itforchange.net> <422D0C8F-F156-45AD-87AD-DB5027C37FCA@arin.net> Message-ID: At 02:06 10/10/2013, John Curran wrote: >I thought you were concerned about the authenticity of the call for >accelerating the >globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, and I was only responding >to such - >my error. In any case, we are already seeing evidence of such >acceleration, which >in and of itself makes the point. No concern about the authenticity of the current, swift and brillant NTIA long planned strategic move in order to counter the Dubai-signatories with the Montevideo-signatories + Barazilian Summit. My concern is where an "acceleration of a statUS-quo" may lead us to except to a self-organizing criticality. I will come back on this, but the result - as far as CS is concerned - is a probable split of the civil society, the emergence of the digital society and the creation of a multilateral NRObis. I have nothing about "fostering competition". jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 21:33:31 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:33:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello, maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF alike. while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such summit? Best, Rafik 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. >> >> Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting >> moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference >> those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms >> of prior phases. >> >> UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President >> will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the >> new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. >> >> My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process >> assessment. >> >> Lee >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Joana Varon [ >> joana at varonferraz.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM >> *To:* Carlos A. Afonso >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >> NCSG List >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world >> event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red >> interrogation mark on our visualization map? >> >> http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html >> >> I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 >> process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 >> meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event >> after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if >> both processes will be connected. >> On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >>> [sorry for possible duplicate posts] >>> >>> Dear people >>> >>> Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the >>> official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's >>> President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. >>> >>> The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 >>> >>> Brazil will host world event on Internet governance >>> >>> From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 >>> >>> Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to >>> Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in >>> English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global >>> leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. >>> >>> According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this >>> issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th >>> UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world >>> heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with >>> great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the >>> world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the >>> Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was >>> the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. >>> >>> Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of >>> Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, >>> Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the >>> president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we >>> can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are >>> equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on >>> how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of >>> the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going >>> through the National Congress. >>> >>> Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo >>> Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes >>> in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should >>> begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of >>> the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the >>> government. >>> >>> "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active >>> participation by governments, their respective agencies within the >>> United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the >>> technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. >>> For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need >>> to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out >>> the management of the Internet infrastructure. >>> >>> The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also >>> attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which >>> we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma >>> agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and >>> with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said >>> that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to >>> interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the >>> suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in >>> Rio de Janeiro. >>> >>> Source : Agência Brazil >>> >>> -------- original in pt-br ------------- >>> >>> O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças >>> necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o >>> presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números >>> (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff >>> concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados >>> no tema. >>> >>> De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta >>> questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da >>> 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O >>> mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, >>> com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo >>> mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que >>> temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma >>> foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. >>> >>> Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de >>> autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a >>> Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta >>> que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que >>> todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em >>> que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as >>> futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem >>> ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no >>> Congresso Nacional. >>> >>> Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo >>> Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre >>> mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem >>> começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da >>> internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. >>> >>> “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação >>> ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das >>> Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, >>> dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu >>> Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais >>> precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a >>> gestão da infraestrutura da internet. >>> >>> O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem >>> também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família >>> com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a >>> presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem >>> ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores >>> que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que >>> interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre >>> circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta >>> é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. >>> >>> fonte: Agência Brasil >>> >> > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 22:13:22 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:13:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] Workshop 145 Importance of Regional Coordination in Internet Governance References: Message-ID: <7F4A41DD-0629-4B7D-B4F9-F5813BB7AF37@gmail.com> Dear All, > I would like to invite you to a workshop organised by the Number Resource Organization (NRO) details of the workshop can be found via > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_accomplish_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=145 > > The workshop is scheduled on Day 3 of the IGF, on Thursday 24 October in Room #2 (Nusa Dua Hall 1) from 11:00 to 12:30. > > Full schedule is at: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/IGF2013Draft.Schedule.Headings.pdf > > You can also log in to remotely participate. Feel free to share. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 9 22:30:49 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:30:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> 2 more cents re how high the summit: Given the call for tech community/cs leaders to engage with heads of state; while everyone maintains a claim to multi-stakeholder (and/or multilateral) democratic/participatory legitimacy, even as mega-telco CEOS jet in from around the world...this should all be more than interesting. If the meeting involves President Rousseff and other heads of state, by definition this is not a run of the mill thing. Or IG forum. But rather than WEF, what it might most closely resemble....is an ICANN meeting, where lots of groups come together, lots of things are happening, but when one door closes only GAC members are in the room. In this case, the photo-ops of heads of state + ICANN, ARIN, LACNIC, etc + telco CEOs will send its own message of love peace and harmony among nation-states, global Internet, and industry. What's not to like? : ) If enough heads of state want in on the photo ops and policy discussions, then think G20 or even G30; with the accompanying cs + industry sideshows typical of G7/G8 events. While other portions of event likely will be pretty wide open and bottom-up participatory, a la ICANN biz as usual. And yes for Brazilian domestic actors, this is also a great chance to cement gains and lock the President and Congress into cs-progressive positions, since she wouldn't wish for anything like the civil society protests happening during this event, which from FIFA and President Rousseff's perspective distracted from the football last summer. Bottom line: Congrats, breakthrough has already happened, the whole event will not very likely do much more than bless the ball already rolling. Lee ________________________________ From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 9:33 PM To: Joana Varon Cc: Lee W McKnight; Carlos A. Afonso; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Hello, maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF alike. while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such summit? Best, Rafik 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process assessment. Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red interrogation mark on our visualization map? http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be connected. On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Agência Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Agência Brasil -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 9 23:24:18 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:24:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> Message-ID: <52561DE2.1090003@ciroap.org> On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can > participate on an equal footing... It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and are forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 9 23:50:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:50:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> , <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting that into play But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr (non) rules and regs. In fact, I think she is inviting all of us to figure out how to participate effectively (and that is among the most interesting elements of the message) to make some serious decisions about what our collective future might look like AND in doing this she has completely up set the status quoist, corporatist, hemegon's applecarts about using the Internet (and its NSA/GCHQ/CSEC enforcers) to give us the future that they want. So bravo Dilma (and Fadi) and even if it is only for a short while (before we all get overcome again by the Walking Dead) let's do some collective dreaming about how to manage the Internet to build the world that we want not the one that they wanted us to have (in their interests M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 7:31 PM To: Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon Cc: Carlos A. Afonso; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 2 more cents re how high the summit: Given the call for tech community/cs leaders to engage with heads of state; while everyone maintains a claim to multi-stakeholder (and/or multilateral) democratic/participatory legitimacy, even as mega-telco CEOS jet in from around the world...this should all be more than interesting. If the meeting involves President Rousseff and other heads of state, by definition this is not a run of the mill thing. Or IG forum. But rather than WEF, what it might most closely resemble....is an ICANN meeting, where lots of groups come together, lots of things are happening, but when one door closes only GAC members are in the room. In this case, the photo-ops of heads of state + ICANN, ARIN, LACNIC, etc + telco CEOs will send its own message of love peace and harmony among nation-states, global Internet, and industry. What's not to like? : ) If enough heads of state want in on the photo ops and policy discussions, then think G20 or even G30; with the accompanying cs + industry sideshows typical of G7/G8 events. While other portions of event likely will be pretty wide open and bottom-up participatory, a la ICANN biz as usual. And yes for Brazilian domestic actors, this is also a great chance to cement gains and lock the President and Congress into cs-progressive positions, since she wouldn't wish for anything like the civil society protests happening during this event, which from FIFA and President Rousseff's perspective distracted from the football last summer. Bottom line: Congrats, breakthrough has already happened, the whole event will not very likely do much more than bless the ball already rolling. Lee _____ From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 9:33 PM To: Joana Varon Cc: Lee W McKnight; Carlos A. Afonso; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Hello, maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF alike. while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such summit? Best, Rafik 2013/10/10 Joana Varon Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new game which will reference those already played but need not be limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the President will work around existing UN schedules to extent feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is probably not what was just agreed. My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process assessment. Lee _____ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the red interrogation mark on our visualization map? http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be connected. On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: [sorry for possible duplicate posts] Dear people Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. fraternal regards --c.a. http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35 107 &sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 Brazil will host world event on Internet governance From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Agência Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gestão da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Agência Brasil -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Oct 10 01:17:38 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 22:17:38 -0700 Subject: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283CC7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> <52551861.6090409@itforchange.net> <4BE8202E-68DE-46EB-BE2F-BB171CEAC757@istaff.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283CC7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 as well (I believe a fairly focused discussion would be helpful, as long as the expectation is that it would be an exercise in exploration of issues) /John On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > +1 > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:17 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran > Subject: Re: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) > > I think discussion might be useful as long as there is no expectation that it will result in one unified position on these questions, or a single approach that will have universal approval. > > What I would like to see is a mechanism to discuss these specific reforms, perhaps just between civil society and technical community at this stage, but perhaps a little broader. It would need to involve ICANN and USA government at some stage. But prior to that perhaps some kind of small group could work on these specific issues to try and find a workable position to advance. > > It would be important to have a specific narrow focus for the group – if it starts to address everything wrong with internet governance, cybercrime and cyberespionage etc it will probably not achieve much in the short term (not that these wider issues are not important). > > For me – I agree with Parminder and John that the US government role as regards IANA function does not need to be replaced by another body – it just needs to be wound up. This is an area where we might get broad agreement. As regards the wider oversight function – I dont personally think it can be resolved without a serious look at ICANN reform, and specifically the role of GAC. Some structural change might be a good way to begin addressing concerns there. > > Given that that might take some time, it might make tactical sense to concentrate some specific efforts on the phasing out of the US government role as regards IANA function. That might be an achievable quick win that would also draw support from other stakeholder groups. > > > Ian Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 10 01:41:46 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:41:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0E2CEE52-B48F-4AFE-A26C-D0F46C5ABBD7@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Carlos, Thank you. Has President Rousseff's office released a report of the meeting, any statement? And pointers to the most current version of Marco Civil, Portuguese and English (if available) would be great to see. Best, Adam On Oct 10, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we > can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going > through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies within the > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma > agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and > with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in > Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados > no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no > Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 03:13:57 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:13:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Designing the world/Internet we want (was Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host...) In-Reply-To: <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <0f3e01cec53b$ee723ed0$cb56bc70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131010091357.4fbde7f7@quill> Michael Gurstein wrote: > CONGRATULATIONS TO BRAZIL FOR STEPPING UP AND SHOWING THE NECESSARY > LEADERSHIP! > > NOW WE MUST SET TO WORK TO HELP DESIGN THE WORLD/INTERNET WE WANT! I strongly agree. The initiative of Brazil and ICANN presents a tremendous opportunity, which will be wasted if we (in the sense of “people who care about human rights and other social justice concerns”, i.e. not limited to just the civil society stakeholder category) don't get to work to initiate such a design process, so that the event in Brazil will have a worthwhile set of input documents. (Of course it is possible for that opportunity to get wasted for reasons other than the lack of a suitable design process, but even then initiating a design process for “the world/Internet we want” will not be a wasted effort. If we get inspired by the hope that this event will be worthwhile, and on the basis of this inspiration create a good design process, something very worthwhile will have been created quite independently of whether the event in Brazil actually fulfills the high expectations.) The first step is to design a suitable design process. This design process needs to be highly inclusive. In particular it must be possible to participate effectively for people who are neither techies nor fluent in the language that is typically used in Internet governance discourses (English). The design process also needs to be technically realistic. At all steps at the design process it must be clear (at least to people with in-depth technical understanding of the topic under consideration) what the suggestions under consideration means in precise technical terms, and that it is possible to implement them, etc. Further, this design process needs to contain suitable mechanisms for dealing with conflicts of interest. For some conflicts, it will be possible after discussion and reflection to find consensus solutions that fully satisfy the interests of all concerned stakeholders. There will however also be other conflicts for which no consensus solution will be found, and that reality also needs to be addressed somehow, for example by working out a set of possible options for national parliaments to choose from. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Oct 10 03:14:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:44:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <0E2CEE52-B48F-4AFE-A26C-D0F46C5ABBD7@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <0E2CEE52-B48F-4AFE-A26C-D0F46C5ABBD7@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <44E9E283-0BFB-474E-8AF1-3B9A1536A34C@hserus.net> Also, out of curiosity, the Marco Civil has language on privacy and data protection. Anything in there against spamming? Thanks --srs (iPad) > On 10-Oct-2013, at 11:11, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > Thank you. > > Has President Rousseff's office released a report of the meeting, any statement? > > And pointers to the most current version of Marco Civil, Portuguese and English (if available) would be great to see. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> [sorry for possible duplicate posts] >> >> Dear people >> >> Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some editing) of the >> official report on the meeting between President Rousseff and ICANN's >> President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. >> >> The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 >> >> Brazil will host world event on Internet governance >> >> From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 >> >> Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to >> Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in >> English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global >> leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. >> >> According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this >> issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th >> UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world >> heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with >> great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the >> world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the >> Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was >> the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. >> >> Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of >> Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, >> Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the >> president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we >> can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are >> equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on >> how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of >> the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going >> through the National Congress. >> >> Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo >> Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes >> in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should >> begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of >> the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the >> government. >> >> "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active >> participation by governments, their respective agencies within the >> United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the >> technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé defended. >> For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need >> to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out >> the management of the Internet infrastructure. >> >> The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also >> attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which >> we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma >> agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and >> with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said >> that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to >> interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the >> suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in >> Rio de Janeiro. >> >> Source : Agência Brazil >> >> -------- original in pt-br ------------- >> >> O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças >> necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar com o >> presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de Nomes e Números >> (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff >> concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores interessados >> no tema. >> >> De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança brasileira nesta >> questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da >> 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. “O >> mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convicção, >> com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas pessoas, em todo >> mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido quebrada que >> temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma >> foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. >> >> Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunicação de >> autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria presidenta, a >> Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar à presidenta >> que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a assegurar que >> todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governança, em >> que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as >> futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a internet devem >> ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no >> Congresso Nacional. >> >> Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunicações, Paulo >> Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre >> mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as articulações devem >> começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo órgão gestor da >> internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só do governo. >> >> “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participação >> ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no âmbito das >> Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da sociedade civil, >> dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar”, defendeu >> Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e industriais >> precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a >> gestão da infraestrutura da internet. >> >> O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunicações devem >> também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante da família >> com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a >> presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da rede devem >> ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos os atores >> que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode “permitir que >> interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na livre >> circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão da presidenta >> é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. >> >> fonte: Agência Brasil > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Oct 10 03:44:17 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:44:17 +0200 Subject: AW: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) References: <52538b31.3uil5cCEYhKCdAJt%suresh@hserus.net> <5253A999.4000705@itforchange.net> <5253FAFD.9070001@itforchange.net> <2AC933AB-E48E-4E5D-813E-DC51533E0095@arin.net> <52542838.9090107@itforchange.net> <25C56327-B9E2-4080-BFBE-E84C59073511@arin.net> <5254E9BC.408@itforchange.net> <6D80C30F-C688-4278-9809-562925079CA7@arin.net> <5254FEFE.5040902@itforchange.net> <4E7A5057-7F76-4758-8D6D-7EB7F559C802@arin.net> <52551861.6090409@itforchange.net> <4BE8202E-68DE-46EB-BE2F-BB171CEAC757@istaff.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283CC7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Couldn´t this embedded in the discussion on IG & MS principles which will take place in the two plenaries in Bali on IGF Day 2? (9.30 - 13.00/Main Hall). And on Day 1 we have he plenary organized by the Brazilian government on the role of governments in IG. BTW, this Brazilian session is a left over from the Geneva WTPF (May 2013) and it is interesting to note that the Brazilian government did choose the IGF as one of the three options for a continuation of the Geneva debate. (The two other options where the ITU Council IG Working Group and the WGEC) wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von John Curran Gesendet: Do 10.10.2013 07:17 An: Ian Peter; Lee W McKnight Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) +1 as well (I believe a fairly focused discussion would be helpful, as long as the expectation is that it would be an exercise in exploration of issues) /John On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: +1 ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter..com ] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:17 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran Subject: Re: Oversight role (was Re: [governance] "technical community fails at multistakeholderism". really?) I think discussion might be useful as long as there is no expectation that it will result in one unified position on these questions, or a single approach that will have universal approval. What I would like to see is a mechanism to discuss these specific reforms, perhaps just between civil society and technical community at this stage, but perhaps a little broader. It would need to involve ICANN and USA government at some stage. But prior to that perhaps some kind of small group could work on these specific issues to try and find a workable position to advance. It would be important to have a specific narrow focus for the group - if it starts to address everything wrong with internet governance, cybercrime and cyberespionage etc it will probably not achieve much in the short term (not that these wider issues are not important). For me - I agree with Parminder and John that the US government role as regards IANA function does not need to be replaced by another body - it just needs to be wound up. This is an area where we might get broad agreement. As regards the wider oversight function - I dont personally think it can be resolved without a serious look at ICANN reform, and specifically the role of GAC. Some structural change might be a good way to begin addressing concerns there. Given that that might take some time, it might make tactical sense to concentrate some specific efforts on the phasing out of the US government role as regards IANA function. That might be an achievable quick win that would also draw support from other stakeholder groups. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Oct 10 03:48:41 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:48:41 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <52561DE2.1090003@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332095@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Jeremy, I disagree. The Brazil-ICANN initiaitve is (and has to be) part of the "stumbling forward" process around IG. It is and can not be an alternative neither to the IGF nor to the WGEC or the various initiatives in the Human Rights Council the 1st and 2nc Committee of the UNGA, the WSIS 10+ process and even the forthcoming ITU PP. What we see is that more and more stakeholders want to have a concrete output and that regional and one-stakeholder projects get "globalized" and "multistakeholderized". wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Do 10.10.2013 05:24 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can participate on an equal footing... It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and are forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 10 04:07:35 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:07:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Message-ID: Hi On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It's not clear we should assume at the outset that 'external' oversight is the end point in mind. It could well be more along the lines of multilateralizing the USG role under the multistakeholder Affirmation of Commitments, which has been an ongoing low-level discussion in IGF and elsewhere for some time now. Expanding internal oversight and buy in would seem institutionally a lot easier to organize. In any event, the one thing I think we can say for certain is that this is not Fadi floating out there all on his own as a free radical. There's active coordination going on behind the scenes among key governments, industry groups, *I orgs…But putting him out front as the face of the coalition is a good move. >> It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance >> challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards >> an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can >> participate on an equal footing... > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) I'm not sure how low we need to hang our heads. The caucus came out for globalizing the USG role in some manner in 2005, before WSIS PrepCom 3. Since then that question's certainly been a leitmotif of discussions here and elsewhere, but imagining precisely what the institutional form and a broadly consensual path to change might look like has been no easier for us than for anyone else. But it's not like nobody has tried…CIRP, expanded AoC, etc. > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. Why so glum, Jeremy? Remember, the conversation is starting in Bali. The MAG decided in February to invite Brazil to formulate a proposal for discussion in the first "Focus Session" (with apologies to Matt, I hate this term and preferred Main Session) on Day 1, "Building Bridges - The Role of Governments in Multistakeholder Cooperation." At that point the thinking was an evolution from the aborted Opinion at the WTPF, but it'll obviously be different and less ITU-oriented now. That discussion will undoubtedly feed into the FS on "Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation" and the multiple workshops on Enhanced Cooperation, etc. So I suspect people will talking about this issue all week in various ways, starting with Best Bits :-). And then the conversation will move on from there... Remember also that there's broad agreement in the MAG and beyond that from Bali forward, the IGF needs to be more "outcome oriented." FCs and workshops alike are supposed to come to some identifiable conclusions that can be reported out, whether it's "messages," "sense of the room," or just some people felt this while others felt that. That's obviously short of the WGIG/Tunis Agenda mandate for Recommendations, but this is an evolutionary process, the next IGF is in Brazil, and Brazil will undoubtedly play a role in the agenda setting for that meeting. So why don't we see where things go before declaring the IGF irrelevant? Given the changed landscape, it's not entirely impossible anymore to at least imagine multistakeholder working groups under the IGF umbrella that generate outputs that feed into FCs or discussions elsewhere, or some other variations….So the "mere discussion forum" could become nested in a broader nexus in a way that's more widely regarded as useful and worth supporting. We'll just have to see... > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and are forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. But the encouragement to Brazil to take a lead on the discussion in Bali was pushed by ISOC's VP for Policy. And the Montevideo Statement from the I-orgs explicitly calls for " accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." So while there's obviously not great enthusiasm for an intergovernmental UN-based model with all that entails, I wouldn't just assume that the "old guard" has been neutralized or bypassed; I think they're in the middle of it. You may be constructing a narrative based on a priori assumptions and inadequate information here. Best, Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 04:15:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:15:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332095@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <99EADE4C-E270-4C88-9EDB-1BC7902384C3@acm.org> <52561DE2.1090003@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332095@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <10f601cec590$f8841010$e98c3030$@gmail.com> Aren't we rather mixing up processes with outcomes here. What is important surely is the outcome not the process, with the effectiveness or desireability of a process being determined by how well it achieves the desired outcomes. Perhaps that is the message that Ms. Rousseff was trying to convey when she substituted the use of the term "multilateral" for the rather over-used and ill-defined terminology of "multistakeholderism". M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:49 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: AW: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Hi Jeremy, I disagree. The Brazil-ICANN initiaitve is (and has to be) part of the "stumbling forward" process around IG. It is and can not be an alternative neither to the IGF nor to the WGEC or the various initiatives in the Human Rights Council the 1st and 2nc Committee of the UNGA, the WSIS 10+ process and even the forthcoming ITU PP. What we see is that more and more stakeholders want to have a concrete output and that regional and one-stakeholder projects get "globalized" and "multistakeholderized". wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Do 10.10.2013 05:24 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can participate on an equal footing... It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation (http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was because the statement was simply too long.) This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and ICANN!) having lost patience and are forging ahead regardless, this leaves anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 05:03:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:03:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Monitoring Your Every Move In-Reply-To: <969E5168-B9BE-4702-B30E-9BA66EF673F5@warpspeed.com> References: <969E5168-B9BE-4702-B30E-9BA66EF673F5@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <112201cec597$a96b7b10$fc427130$@gmail.com> The activities of the private sector shouldn't be ignored in any discussion/policy development concerning privacy/surveillance. M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:51 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Monitoring Your Every Move October 9, 2013 Monitoring Your Every Move By THE EDITORIAL BOARD You may have even less privacy than you thought. Most Internet users know that Web sites and advertisers monitor what they do online and use that information to pitch products and services. What's not as well known is that these companies can track individuals as they move between devices like personal computers, cellphones and tablets. This type of "cross-device" tracking raises significant privacy concerns because most users are simply unaware that it is taking place. Internet companies capable of such monitoring do it through various means, including by figuring out if different devices are using the same Internet connection and are visiting the same Web sites and mobile apps. If, for instance, you have used your home computer to research a Hawaiian vacation, travel companies can show you ads for flights to Honolulu on apps you use on your cellphone. Internet businesses argue that such targeting benefits everybody: advertisers get access to customers who are more likely to buy their products while individuals receive offers for stuff they are interested in. (The New York Times's mobile apps include software from advertising networks that gather nonpersonal information about how readers use the newspaper.) But there's also a big privacy issue. Many Americans worry that the Internet has already extracted more personal information about them they would like. Now comes the news that advertisers can follow people from work computer to tablet computer to cellphone even though those devices are not connected to one another. New technology also allows advertisers access to mobile phones without the "cookies" they need to access personal computers. This makes it harder than ever for users to escape the gaze of private companies. By connecting information from these devices, database companies that collect information can know a lot more about individuals than previously thought possible, including, for instance, their physical location and the identity of family members, friends and colleagues. The use of this information to target advertising might amount to a mere annoyance to most people. But such information could also end up in detailed individual profiles that could be obtained by government agencies or purchased by employers or banks to evaluate candidates for jobs or loans. At some point, the makers of computers, phones and software may devise new tools that allow people to protect themselves from sophisticated forms of tracking. But they will always be one step behind firms that are in the business of collecting information. The best solution is for lawmakers to pass legislation that sets clear rules that would regulate and limit how businesses collect personal information, what they can use it for and how long they keep it. The rules, which could be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, should also give consumers an easy way to review files about themselves or simply choose not to have the information collected. At the moment, the advantage on the Internet lies increasingly with the data miners and the advertisers, not the consumer. Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 10 04:49:15 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:49:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 05:50 10/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >In fact, I think she is inviting all of us "us"? So far, I understand that Telcos are. I would be surprised they bluntly hear "us" after years we tried to by-pass their ITU. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 06:20:34 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:20:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <71D6FA62-07FC-4C58-A546-9946EE7BE738@gmail.com> References: <7FA65363-ABAF-4182-824E-05DEA01A6AB1@gmail.com> <71D6FA62-07FC-4C58-A546-9946EE7BE738@gmail.com> Message-ID: And why not start the discussion about CS agenda for the proposed summit here online ahead of Bali? I'd find it more inclusive to start setting the CS framework here (if only in broad lines) and make sure the discussions in Bali feed into that and are reported on here. After all it's cheaper to get internet connection than to fly to Bali. I would also hope that remote participation facilities will be robust enough to allow a smooth and comprehensive engagement with those not on the scenes. mawaki ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mawaki Chango, PhD DIGILEXIS Consulting, Founder and CEO ICT Policy & Regulations | KM & Organizational Processes | ICT4D | Digital Records & Identity www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com @digilexis @mawakiDIGILEXIS +225 4448 7764 On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:21 AM, William Drake wrote: > I agree with Adam that cross-posting multiple lists gets too messy, but > then responding on just one makes the conversation more fragmentary and > leaves out folks who are not multiply subscribed, so….FWIW below what I > said on Governance > > ------- > > Hi > > On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 10/10/13 06:33, John Curran wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Do I understand correctly: according to this the President of ICANN has just agreed with the need for external oversight of ICANN, and unnamed other organizations, involved in governance/management of the Internet, just as long as it is multistakeholder? > > It's not clear we should assume at the outset that 'external' oversight is > the end point in mind. It could well be more along the lines of > multilateralizing the USG role under the multistakeholder Affirmation of > Commitments, which has been an ongoing low-level discussion in IGF and > elsewhere for some time now. Expanding internal oversight and buy in would > seem institutionally a lot easier to organize. > > In any event, the one thing I think we can say for certain is that this is > not Fadi floating out there all on his own as a free radical. There's > active coordination going on behind the scenes among key governments, > industry groups, *I orgs…But putting him out front as the face of the > coalition is a good move. > > It appears to be a significant effort to address Internet Governance > challenges, including acceleration of the globalization of ICANN towards > an environment in which all stakeholders (including all governments) can > participate on an equal footing... > > > It puts civil society to shame in how timid we, at large, have been in > proposing similar advances on the status quo. (I have not made much of a > secret of the fact that I was disappointed in the number of endorsements > that the Best Bits statement on enhanced cooperation ( > http://bestbits.net/ec) received, though in part I accept that this was > because the statement was simply too long.) > > > I'm not sure how low we need to hang our heads. The caucus came out for > globalizing the USG role in some manner in 2005, before WSIS PrepCom 3. > Since then that question's certainly been a leitmotif of discussions here > and elsewhere, but imagining precisely what the institutional form and a > broadly consensual path to change might look like has been no easier for us > than for anyone else. But it's not like nobody has tried…CIRP, expanded > AoC, etc. > > > This has also, in one stroke, determined the IGF's future. Of course the > writing has been on the wall for the IGF for a while now, but it has now > officially become irrelevant in terms of its larger role in > multi-stakeholder Internet governance as originally anticipated in the > Tunis Agenda. Of course it will continue to have a role as a discussion > forum, but the momentum for it to fulfil a larger role has moved elsewhere. > > > Why so glum, Jeremy? Remember, the conversation is starting in Bali. The > MAG decided in February to invite Brazil to formulate a proposal for > discussion in the first "Focus Session" (with apologies to Matt, I hate > this term and preferred Main Session) on Day 1, "Building Bridges - The > Role of Governments in Multistakeholder Cooperation." At that point the > thinking was an evolution from the aborted Opinion at the WTPF, but it'll > obviously be different and less ITU-oriented now. That discussion will > undoubtedly feed into the FS on "Principles > of Multistakeholder Cooperation" and the multiple workshops on Enhanced > Cooperation, etc. So I suspect people will talking about this issue all > week in various ways, starting with Best Bits :-). And then the > conversation will move on from there... > > Remember also that there's broad agreement in the MAG and beyond that from > Bali forward, the IGF needs to be more "outcome oriented." FCs and > workshops alike are supposed to come to some identifiable conclusions that > can be reported out, whether it's "messages," "sense of the room," or just > some people felt this while others felt that. That's obviously short of > the WGIG/Tunis Agenda mandate for Recommendations, but this is an > evolutionary process, the next IGF is in Brazil, and Brazil will > undoubtedly play a role in the agenda setting for that meeting. So why > don't we see where things go before declaring the IGF irrelevant? Given > the changed landscape, it's not entirely impossible anymore to at least > imagine multistakeholder working groups under the IGF umbrella that > generate outputs that feed into FCs or discussions elsewhere, or some other > variations….So the "mere discussion forum" could become nested in a broader > nexus in a way that's more widely regarded as useful and worth supporting. > We'll just have to see... > > > It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community > (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Whilst they > can still oppose meaningful implementation of enhanced cooperation reforms, > this opposition is now utterly token and ineffectual. With Brazil (and > ICANN!) having lost patience and are forging ahead regardless, this leaves > anyone arguing against reforms at the WGEC looking silly and irrelevant. > > > But the encouragement to Brazil to take a lead on the discussion in Bali > was pushed by ISOC's VP for Policy. And the Montevideo Statement from the > I-orgs explicitly calls for " accelerating the globalization > of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all > stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." > So while there's obviously not great enthusiasm for an intergovernmental > UN-based model with all that entails, I wouldn't just assume that the "old > guard" has been neutralized or bypassed; I think they're in the middle of > it. You may be constructing a narrative based on a priori assumptions and > inadequate information here. > > Best, > > Bill > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 07:48:51 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:48:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have strong representation in this process. fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/09/2013 10:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello, > > maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement > emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about > the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of > governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those > familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF > alike. > while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of > conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such > summit? > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > > > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this happen. > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. > Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new > game which will reference those already played but need not be > limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the > President will work around existing UN schedules to extent > feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is > probably not what was just agreed. > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process > assessment. > > Lee > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] on behalf of Joana > Varon [joana at varonferraz.com ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; NCSG List > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host > world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the > red interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the > WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? > During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil > wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt > envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be > connected. > > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > Dear people > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some > editing) of the > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff > and ICANN's > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > >From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the > necessary changes to > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the > Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its > acronym in > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to > meet global > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's > leadership on this > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening > of the 68th > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. > "The world > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep > conviction, with > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many > people around the > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we > have with the > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by > Dilma was > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the > communication of > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very > president, > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to > ask the > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to > ensure that we > can all get together around a new model of governance in > which all are > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future > decisions on > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the > principles of > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which > is going > through the National Congress. > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications > Minister Paulo > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions > about changes > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the > arrangements should > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new > governing body of > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, > not just the > government. > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that > requires active > participation by governments, their respective agencies > within the > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil > society, the > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé > defended. > For the president of the corporation, academics and > industrialists need > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and > carry out > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies > must also > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family > with which > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, > President Dilma > agreed that changes in network governance must occur > multilaterally and > with the participation of all actors who engage the > internet, and said > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious > interests to > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister > said that the > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in > April 2014 in > Rio de Janeiro. > > Source : Agência Brazil > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudanças > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar > com o > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de > Nomes e Números > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta > Dilma Rousseff > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores > interessados > no tema. > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança > brasileira nesta > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na > abertura da > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos > Estados Unidos. “O > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda > convicção, > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas > pessoas, em todo > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido > quebrada que > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o > discurso de Dilma > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a > comunicação de > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria > presidenta, a > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar > à presidenta > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a > assegurar que > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de > governança, em > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann > disse que as > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a > internet devem > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que > tramita no > Congresso Nacional. > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das > Comunicações, Paulo > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os > debates sobre > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as > articulações devem > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo > órgão gestor da > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só > do governo. > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige > participação > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no > âmbito das > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da > sociedade civil, > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet > funcionar”, defendeu > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e > industriais > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito > e fazem a > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de > telecomunicações devem > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante > da família > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo > Bernardo, a > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da > rede devem > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos > os atores > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode > “permitir que > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na > livre > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão > da presidenta > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 07:57:41 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:57:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20131010135741.51590470@quill> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We > need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, > and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming > suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have > strong representation in this process. +1 Do you have advice on how to go about making sure that we have strong representation? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 08:01:06 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:01:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131010135741.51590470@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> Message-ID: <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> This is a question for the whole group. --c.a. On 10/10/2013 08:57 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We >> need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, >> and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming >> suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have >> strong representation in this process. > > +1 > > Do you have advice on how to go about making sure that we have strong > representation? > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 10 08:09:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:39:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Neelie Kroes affirms Rousseff's positions, and adds some fire of her own Message-ID: <525698EE.2090903@itforchange.net> First Rousseff's UN speech, then the Montevideo statement, then the declaration of the new Brazil - ICANN initiative, and now this.... Becoming a kind of a snowball effect. The question it, would this hold and be strong enough to be able to change the very entrenched status quo of power in global IG. The WGEC meeting in early Nov will be one place to find out if people are ready to put their money where their mouth is..... parminder Internet Governance: I want your views! Published by Neelie KROES on Wednesday, 09/10/2013 As digital agenda commissioner I have long fought hard to keep *the Internet driving positive change *- helping Europe's economy and society. And now we are asking for your views on internet governance . I have fought especially hard for an open Internet. As a network of networks, *no one person or country owns the Internet*, but we do need *a clear set of rules that everybody needs to play by*. I have defended such rules at international conferences on the Internet, most recently at the Internet Governance Forum in Baku – and, in particular, resisted attempts by others to push for significant increases to the scope of International Telecoms Regulations at the recent WCIT meeting in Dubai. But since then a lot of things have happened. We have heard about *massive surveillance operations by secret services*, within Europe as well as the US. Of course we are extremely concerned by what that means for personal data protection. But this also has *deep implications for the governance of the Internet*. It is clearly influencing how some international partners are thinking . And it is even more important now that we agree on common principles for Internet governance, and how decisions are made in all Internet-related matters. This autumn will be crucial in many ways. In Europe, I am proposing ambitious measures to bring down barriers within our connected continent . That's a priority for me, and a priority for our economic future, which I hope EU leaders will take seriously at their forthcoming summit . But, at the same time as we bring those barriers down, *I want to avoid new ones going up*. Later this month, Internet world leaders are meeting at the Internet Governance Forum in Bali. I am sorry that, for the first time, I cannot be there in person myself. But I would like to contribute, both to make clear how closely and seriously we are watching this debate, and to stress the importance of having a clear and robust framework for Internet Governance and policy-making as soon as possible. As it stands today, the conclusions of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) are the only international-level political agreement on Internet governance; and they are the subject of several consultations. Particularly important among those consultations are the discussions in the "WSIS+10" High-Level Event , and the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation ; I hope many of you will be contributing. *The Internet is increasingly the forum for so much of our lives*; from transacting through commerce or banking; to interacting through social networks; to communicating with governments or pushing for democratic change. It's clear to me that the Internet is a European strategic domain – and, although the internet is a different kind of place to the "real world", our stance towards it should be underpinned by just the same values, priorities and interests as everything else. This digital age needs *a new social contract. *Decisions that affect the Internet shouldn't be taken just by politicians, companies or technicians alone, without any reference to common principles. So I believe that the new social contract *must be based on sound principles*. My starting point here are those in the Compact I first floated a couple of years ago; like that the Internet should remain open, unified, pro-democratic, enabling trust and confidence, and based on transparent, multi-stakeholder governance. Recent news shows just how fragile this balance of values can be; important efforts to tackle terrorist threats cannot be at the expense of fundamental freedoms. But we also must have a clearer view of *what we mean when we speak of "multi-stakeholder processes"*. I worry that without a clear definition, everyone will claim that their decision processes are inclusive and transparent, when in practice they are not – as was shown recently, when the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN pressed on regardless - in spite of the EU's legitimate concerns on new domain names. As you may have seen, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff recently set out her strong belief in multi-lateral cooperation as a basis for Internet governance. I am looking forward to seeing further details – but in principle I very much support that line. Plus, our future Global Internet Policy Observatory will help give a more balanced view of how the Internet should be governed. And I know many of these issues will also be discussed in Bali. But I want to take this seriously. These are my thoughts*: but I want yours too; your ideas on how the Internet should be governed and what Europe's role should be*. For the next four weeks, please share your views on the dedicated web page . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 10 08:50:33 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:50:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25001F6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25001F6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 07:26 10/10/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: >I agree with you Rafik, harmony among ambitious “leaders” does >not mean that we have solved the problem of how to make Internet >governance responsive to Internet users. It is easy for ICANN’s >CEO, who would like more autonomy from the USG, to cozy up to >Brazil’s President, and in some ways it is a good initiative, >especially following the Uruguay declaration, which indicates that >the world’s multistakeholder organizations agree with the >longstanding position of the Internet Governance Project that the >privileged US position over the DNS root should be ended. But that >is just one small step, and we have to avoid letting the media >attention focus exclusively on “leaders” as if the controlled the internet. Milton, Here, I certainly agree with you, Rafik, and some others. I understand that as an academic you do not want to commit to any position at this stage. I have been on the OpenUse strategic side for 35 years, and have been directly engaged in this process. I would be very, very surprised if Fadi and Dilma have agreed upon something which was not well prepared in advance (John Curan reminded the IANA NTIA NOI) and endorsed in Montevideo (when all of these people left the US the NTIA was not shutdown, and by any means it is not shot-down) and closely monitored (supported ?) on the European PRISM. Now, my only question is: what is good in there for OpenUse? I think it is too soon to tell. We need to study the flaws and the leaks of the next five steps: - cyberSeoul - the High-Level ethitechnic meeting - the Bali outcome - reactions to Neelie Kroes call - the ISOC response to my RFC 6852 appeal (I will only send it after Bali for it to be the most useful to all). We now have USSH (US Stake Holders) Inc. with the OECD and Brazil as clients. This is a commercial and political reshuffling between Dubai and Montevideo signatories. This may lead to a USSH monopoly or failure, a USSH/ITU alliance (my old ITU-I proposition?) or war, an NRO monopoly or the emergence of NRObis. I do not think that this is our priority, however. Our priority is more probably the clarification that we are starting to observe among ourselves between "civil society" leaders interested in pure, old human rights, ready to negotiate agreements, and the "digital society" members who also are interested in the practicalities of digitally extended human rights and in carving them in the "source code". Because "code is law". jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 08:57:55 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:57:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just > about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting > that into play… I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > > > > But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite > the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my > reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the > frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and > the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) rules > and regs. It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from the T&A folks, not Brasilia. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 09:10:50 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:10:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) --c.a. On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just >> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting >> that into play… > > > I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > >> >> >> >> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite >> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my >> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the >> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) rules >> and regs. > > > > It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it > is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are > spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from > the T&A folks, not Brasilia. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Thu Oct 10 09:13:20 2013 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:13:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Neelie Kroes: "Internet Governance: I want your views!" Message-ID: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D0896005932786284@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> [ Apologies if you receive duplicates. Please do share this message widely ] Dear colleagues, dear friends, I would like to share with you the recent blog post by Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the European Commission and Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, on Internet Governance. The blog post is accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/internet-governance-i-want-your-views and also reproduced below for ease of reference. Vice-President Kroes highlights some of her key thoughts on the main challenges for the governance of the Internet and calls upon everyone to share their views on how the Internet should be governed and what Europe's role should be. Such online engagement will take place via the Digital Agenda website at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/content/europe-and-internet-global-context. Importantly, as part of this online engagement a discussion paper was produced and put online at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/131007%20public%20questions%20formatted.pdf. I would encourage all of you to express your views. +++ Internet Governance: I want your views! Published by Neelie KROES on Wednesday, 09/10/2013 As digital agenda commissioner I have long fought hard to keep the Internet driving positive change - helping Europe's economy and society. And now we are asking for your views on internet governance. I have fought especially hard for an open Internet. As a network of networks, no one person or country owns the Internet, but we do need a clear set of rules that everybody needs to play by. I have defended such rules at international conferences on the Internet, most recently at the Internet Governance Forum in Baku - and, in particular, resisted attempts by others to push for significant increases to the scope of International Telecoms Regulations at the recent WCIT meeting in Dubai. But since then a lot of things have happened. We have heard about massive surveillance operations by secret services, within Europe as well as the US. Of course we are extremely concerned by what that means for personal data protection. But this also has deep implications for the governance of the Internet. It is clearly influencing how some international partners are thinking. And it is even more important now that we agree on common principles for Internet governance, and how decisions are made in all Internet-related matters. This autumn will be crucial in many ways. In Europe, I am proposing ambitious measures to bring down barriers within our connected continent. That's a priority for me, and a priority for our economic future, which I hope EU leaders will take seriously at their forthcoming summit. But, at the same time as we bring those barriers down, I want to avoid new ones going up. Later this month, Internet world leaders are meeting at the Internet Governance Forum in Bali. I am sorry that, for the first time, I cannot be there in person myself. But I would like to contribute, both to make clear how closely and seriously we are watching this debate, and to stress the importance of having a clear and robust framework for Internet Governance and policy-making as soon as possible. As it stands today, the conclusions of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) are the only international-level political agreement on Internet governance; and they are the subject of several consultations. Particularly important among those consultations are the discussions in the "WSIS+10" High-Level Event, and the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation; I hope many of you will be contributing. The Internet is increasingly the forum for so much of our lives; from transacting through commerce or banking; to interacting through social networks; to communicating with governments or pushing for democratic change. It's clear to me that the Internet is a European strategic domain - and, although the internet is a different kind of place to the "real world", our stance towards it should be underpinned by just the same values, priorities and interests as everything else. This digital age needs a new social contract. Decisions that affect the Internet shouldn't be taken just by politicians, companies or technicians alone, without any reference to common principles. So I believe that the new social contract must be based on sound principles. My starting point here are those in the Compact I first floated a couple of years ago; like that the Internet should remain open, unified, pro-democratic, enabling trust and confidence, and based on transparent, multi-stakeholder governance. Recent news shows just how fragile this balance of values can be; important efforts to tackle terrorist threats cannot be at the expense of fundamental freedoms. But we also must have a clearer view of what we mean when we speak of "multi-stakeholder processes". I worry that without a clear definition, everyone will claim that their decision processes are inclusive and transparent, when in practice they are not - as was shown recently, when the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN pressed on regardless - in spite of the EU's legitimate concerns on new domain names. As you may have seen, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff recently set out her strong belief in multi-lateral cooperation as a basis for Internet governance. I am looking forward to seeing further details - but in principle I very much support that line. Plus, our future Global Internet Policy Observatory will help give a more balanced view of how the Internet should be governed. And I know many of these issues will also be discussed in Bali. But I want to take this seriously. These are my thoughts: but I want yours too; your ideas on how the Internet should be governed and what Europe's role should be. For the next four weeks, please share your views on the dedicated web page. +++ Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2965 bytes Desc: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 1.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 09:14:48 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:14:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we hold next year a Global Summit" Seem fairly clear to me. On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) > > --c.a. > > On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just >>> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting >>> that into play… >> >> >> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite >>> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my >>> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >>> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) rules >>> and regs. >> >> >> >> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it >> is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >> >> -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 10:39:49 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:39:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, I understand your excitement and pride as Brazilian but as Tunisian I am more cautious with what my gov can claim :) (I would instead wait till marco civil to be voted to celebrate for example but yes I am not familiar with Brazilian internal politics) not sure what is your take regarding IGF, ywa you are talking about interesting process , but we dont have such process now and it looks more as an interpretation and wish than something concrete. are you looking to replace IGF by a summit yet to be defined? Best, Rafik 2013/10/10 Carlos A. Afonso > I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We > need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, > and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming > suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have strong > representation in this process. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/09/2013 10:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hello, > > > > maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and excitement > > emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering about > > the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of > > governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those > > familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more than IGF > > alike. > > while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of > > conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we welcome such > > summit? > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > > > > > > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > > wrote: > > > > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this > happen. > > > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. > > Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for a new > > game which will reference those already played but need not be > > limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. > > > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the > > President will work around existing UN schedules to extent > > feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is > > probably not what was just agreed. > > > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy process > > assessment. > > > > Lee > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > > [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > ] on behalf of Joana > > Varon [joana at varonferraz.com ] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > < > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > ; NCSG List > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host > > world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the > > red interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the > > WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely independent? > > During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that Brazil > > wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt > > envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes will be > > connected. > > > > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > > wrote: > > > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > > > Dear people > > > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some > > editing) of the > > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff > > and ICANN's > > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the end. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > > > >From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the > > necessary changes to > > Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the > > Internet > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its > > acronym in > > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to > > meet global > > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's > > leadership on this > > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening > > of the 68th > > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. > > "The world > > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep > > conviction, with > > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many > > people around the > > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we > > have with the > > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by > > Dilma was > > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the > > communication of > > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very > > president, > > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to > > ask the > > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to > > ensure that we > > can all get together around a new model of governance in > > which all are > > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future > > decisions on > > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the > > principles of > > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which > > is going > > through the National Congress. > > > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications > > Minister Paulo > > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions > > about changes > > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the > > arrangements should > > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new > > governing body of > > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, > > not just the > > government. > > > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that > > requires active > > participation by governments, their respective agencies > > within the > > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil > > society, the > > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehadé > > defended. > > For the president of the corporation, academics and > > industrialists need > > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and > > carry out > > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies > > must also > > attend the conference."They are integral part of the family > > with which > > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, > > President Dilma > > agreed that changes in network governance must occur > > multilaterally and > > with the participation of all actors who engage the > > internet, and said > > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious > > interests to > > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister > > said that the > > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in > > April 2014 in > > Rio de Janeiro. > > > > Source : Agência Brazil > > > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as > mudanças > > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se encontrar > > com o > > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de > > Nomes e Números > > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta > > Dilma Rousseff > > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores > > interessados > > no tema. > > > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança > > brasileira nesta > > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na > > abertura da > > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos > > Estados Unidos. “O > > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda > > convicção, > > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas > > pessoas, em todo > > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido > > quebrada que > > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o > > discurso de Dilma > > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a > > comunicação de > > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria > > presidenta, a > > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim solicitar > > à presidenta > > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a > > assegurar que > > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de > > governança, em > > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann > > disse que as > > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a > > internet devem > > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que > > tramita no > > Congresso Nacional. > > > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das > > Comunicações, Paulo > > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os > > debates sobre > > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as > > articulações devem > > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo > > órgão gestor da > > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, não só > > do governo. > > > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige > > participação > > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos órgãos no > > âmbito das > > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da > > sociedade civil, > > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet > > funcionar”, defendeu > > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e > > industriais > > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito > > e fazem a > > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de > > telecomunicações devem > > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte integrante > > da família > > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo > > Bernardo, a > > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na governança da > > rede devem > > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de todos > > os atores > > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode > > “permitir que > > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos interfiram na > > livre > > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão > > da presidenta > > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Oct 10 10:44:51 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:14:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Point taken, Mawaki. We can very well already start sharing ideas online. One of the reasons why I proposed we use the conversations in Bali as a starting point is because I had some quite specific possible agenda items in mind myself. Why not use this opportunity to also start thinking/advocating in a more concerted fashion about the role of civil society in multistakeholder Internet governance and what is required for it to fulfil that role? I find it fascinating how much time we spend on discussing the role of governments, but how little conversation we have about our own role. If this conference is going to be about a more democratic multistakeholder system for Internet governance, I think it is quite important that we also put on the table proposals regarding more formal and systematic involvement of civil society in Internet governance across the board, and the rather thorny issue of how that is going to be made possible in practice (including where the funding is going to come from). Some of these issues will be implicit in our conversations in Bali, and hence I thought those might be an easy starting point for this part of the debate, but there is of course no reason why we shouldn't start doing so already online. Some of my own thoughts on the difficult position civil society finds itself in at the moment can be found here: http://internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/ Best regards, Anja On 10 October 2013 18:40, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) > > --c.a. > > On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't > just > >> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and > putting > >> that into play… > > > > > > I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > > > >> > >> > >> > >> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to > invite > >> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. > Rather my > >> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, > the > >> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade > and > >> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) > rules > >> and regs. > > > > > > > > It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it > > is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are > > spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from > > the T&A folks, not Brasilia. > > > > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 11:34:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:34:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> Hmm.. I'd suggest that it will probably be an important step to find out who specifically will be in charge on the Brazilian government's side of the preparations for this event. We should then communicate to that person. In fact we could begin to draft content for such a letter from the IGC before we know who the specific addressee is going to be. Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:01:06 -0300 schrieb "Carlos A. Afonso" : > This is a question for the whole group. > > --c.a. > > On 10/10/2013 08:57 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > >> I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the > >> IGF. We need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on > >> international IG, and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead > >> of just becoming suspicious, let us work proactively together to > >> make sure we have strong representation in this process. > > > > +1 > > > > Do you have advice on how to go about making sure that we have > > strong representation? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 10 13:06:12 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:06:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> Message-ID: <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> Update: There has been good discussion on the BestBits list on drafting a letter that would express interest in a positive way and request that international civil society should be included in the preparatory process. Michael Gurstein has volunteered to participate in creating the initial draft and more recently I have also volunteered. I think that for creating an initial draft, it is best for the drafting group to be small, but it would be great to have someone from Brazil on that little team. Who volunteers? Informal creation of such an initial draft will of course have to be followed by a formal consensus process, in order for IGC to be able to formally endorse the resulting letter. Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:34:33 +0200 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > Hmm.. I'd suggest that it will probably be an important step to find > out who specifically will be in charge on the Brazilian government's > side of the preparations for this event. > > We should then communicate to that person. > > In fact we could begin to draft content for such a letter from the IGC > before we know who the specific addressee is going to be. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:01:06 -0300 > schrieb "Carlos A. Afonso" : > > > This is a question for the whole group. > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 10/10/2013 08:57 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > > > >> I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the > > >> IGF. We need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on > > >> international IG, and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead > > >> of just becoming suspicious, let us work proactively together to > > >> make sure we have strong representation in this process. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Do you have advice on how to go about making sure that we have > > > strong representation? > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 13:11:30 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:11:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just >>>> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting >>>> that into play… >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite >>>> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my >>>> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >>>> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) rules >>>> and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it >>> is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 13:13:19 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:13:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5256E02F.8060402@cafonso.ca> It takes a lot more to get me excited, Rafik! A lot more... :) frt rgds --c.a. On 10/10/2013 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > I understand your excitement and pride as Brazilian but as Tunisian I > am more cautious with what my gov can claim :) (I would instead wait > till marco civil to be voted to celebrate for example but yes I am not > familiar with Brazilian internal politics) > not sure what is your take regarding IGF, ywa you are talking about > interesting process , but we dont have such process now and it looks > more as an interpretation and wish than something concrete. are you > looking to replace IGF by a summit yet to be defined? > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/10 Carlos A. Afonso > > > I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We > need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, > and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming > suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have strong > representation in this process. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/09/2013 10:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hello, > > > > maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and > excitement > > emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering > about > > the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of > > governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those > > familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more > than IGF > > alike. > > while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of > > conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we > welcome such > > summit? > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > > >> > > > > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > > > >> wrote: > > > > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this > happen. > > > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. > > Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for > a new > > game which will reference those already played but need not be > > limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. > > > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the > > President will work around existing UN schedules to extent > > feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is > > probably not what was just agreed. > > > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy > process > > assessment. > > > > Lee > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > > > > [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > >] on behalf of Joana > > Varon [joana at varonferraz.com > >] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > >> < > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > >; NCSG List > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host > > world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the > > red interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the > > WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely > independent? > > During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that > Brazil > > wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt > > envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes > will be > > connected. > > > > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > > >> wrote: > > > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > > > Dear people > > > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some > > editing) of the > > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff > > and ICANN's > > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the > end. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > > > >From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the > > necessary changes to > > Internet governance. After meeting with the president > of the > > Internet > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its > > acronym in > > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to > > meet global > > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's > > leadership on this > > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening > > of the 68th > > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United > States. > > "The world > > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep > > conviction, with > > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many > > people around the > > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we > > have with the > > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the > speech by > > Dilma was > > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the > > communication of > > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very > > president, > > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to > > ask the > > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to > > ensure that we > > can all get together around a new model of governance in > > which all are > > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future > > decisions on > > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the > > principles of > > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil > which > > is going > > through the National Congress. > > > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications > > Minister Paulo > > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions > > about changes > > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the > > arrangements should > > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new > > governing body of > > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, > > not just the > > government. > > > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that > > requires active > > participation by governments, their respective agencies > > within the > > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil > > society, the > > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," > Chehadé > > defended. > > For the president of the corporation, academics and > > industrialists need > > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on > rights and > > carry out > > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies > > must also > > attend the conference."They are integral part of the > family > > with which > > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, > > President Dilma > > agreed that changes in network governance must occur > > multilaterally and > > with the participation of all actors who engage the > > internet, and said > > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious > > interests to > > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister > > said that the > > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in > > April 2014 in > > Rio de Janeiro. > > > > Source : Agência Brazil > > > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir > as mudanças > > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se > encontrar > > com o > > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de > > Nomes e Números > > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta > > Dilma Rousseff > > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores > > interessados > > no tema. > > > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança > > brasileira nesta > > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff > discursou na > > abertura da > > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos > > Estados Unidos. “O > > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com > profunda > > convicção, > > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas > > pessoas, em todo > > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido > > quebrada que > > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o > > discurso de Dilma > > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a > > comunicação de > > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria > > presidenta, a > > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim > solicitar > > à presidenta > > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a > > assegurar que > > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de > > governança, em > > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann > > disse que as > > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a > > internet devem > > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que > > tramita no > > Congresso Nacional. > > > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das > > Comunicações, Paulo > > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os > > debates sobre > > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as > > articulações devem > > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo > > órgão gestor da > > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, > não só > > do governo. > > > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige > > participação > > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos > órgãos no > > âmbito das > > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da > > sociedade civil, > > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet > > funcionar”, defendeu > > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e > > industriais > > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o > direito > > e fazem a > > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de > > telecomunicações devem > > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte > integrante > > da família > > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo > > Bernardo, a > > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na > governança da > > rede devem > > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de > todos > > os atores > > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode > > “permitir que > > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos > interfiram na > > livre > > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão > > da presidenta > > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 13:49:41 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:49:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> Message-ID: <5256E8B5.4050005@cafonso.ca> If the adressees are Dilma and Fadi, I can try to deliver to the Presidenta as I see no reason I cannot do it again :) --c.a. On 10/10/2013 02:06 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Update: There has been good discussion on the BestBits list on drafting > a letter that would express interest in a positive way and request that > international civil society should be included in the preparatory > process. > > Michael Gurstein has volunteered to participate in creating the initial > draft and more recently I have also volunteered. I think that for > creating an initial draft, it is best for the drafting group to be > small, but it would be great to have someone from Brazil on that little > team. > > Who volunteers? > > Informal creation of such an initial draft will of course have to be > followed by a formal consensus process, in order for IGC to be able to > formally endorse the resulting letter. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:34:33 +0200 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > >> Hmm.. I'd suggest that it will probably be an important step to find >> out who specifically will be in charge on the Brazilian government's >> side of the preparations for this event. >> >> We should then communicate to that person. >> >> In fact we could begin to draft content for such a letter from the IGC >> before we know who the specific addressee is going to be. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:01:06 -0300 >> schrieb "Carlos A. Afonso" : >> >>> This is a question for the whole group. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 10/10/2013 08:57 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the >>>>> IGF. We need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on >>>>> international IG, and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead >>>>> of just becoming suspicious, let us work proactively together to >>>>> make sure we have strong representation in this process. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Do you have advice on how to go about making sure that we have >>>> strong representation? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 13:59:35 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:59:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> +1 M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 10 14:55:56 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:55:56 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256F28A.7090305@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <6B129299-0907-4D37-A614-9DCF73722D89@acm.org> <5256F28A.7090305@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: At 20:31 10/10/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >Avri, so did (or it seems to have done) the ARIN fellow. This was signed >as a statement of the "leaders" of whatever, so it saves them in a >certain way from having their ears pulled when they return to their home >bases, so to speak. This has only one realistly serious explanation from gathered inputs. Everyone in Montevideo was under the clear understanding that there was a metaconsensus. This is in disagreement with legal and democratic rules, but in agreement with MS spirit. - OpenStand IEEE was not represented so it was purely an Internet affair. - no one feared his constituants so the rough-metaconsensus had to be assumed to be deep in Boards and sub-leadership. The reference to the IANA NTIA NOI by John Curan and other direct and indirect inputs clearly indicates the sopurce of inspiration of the metaconsensus. Leaders, together with the NTIA, have the clear common understanding that this is the correct move to maintain/protec/save the US StakeHolders market statUS-quo, bringing in the Telcos in support of the "family". This is why I call this USSH Inc. The stakeholdership is in the US business. If this gurantees a stable internet due to further European, Asian, etc. other business stakeholderships competition it can be a good point for us, as long as we do not ally with one of them against the others. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Oct 10 15:01:01 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:01:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear people, For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the Summit??) In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. All the best joana On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > +1 > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM > To: McTim > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik > Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will > host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Dear compa McT, > > You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... > :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel > disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to > finally move on. > > At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement > at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil > society > defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her > twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of > rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers > in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by > the > presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? > :) > > Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet > another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, > as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that > that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. > > All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the > government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, > who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance > we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom > oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. > Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those > principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar > proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes > as well. > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > > hold next year a Global Summit" > > > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this > >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this > >>>> going and putting that into play. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going > >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and > >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite > >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now > >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it > >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that > >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are > >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from > >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From plzakr at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 15:10:33 2013 From: plzakr at gmail.com (Ray Plzak) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:10:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256E02F.8060402@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <5256E02F.8060402@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <007c01cec5ec$64eefa20$2eccee60$@gmail.com> Carlos, I can agree with you on that! :-) Ray -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:13 PM To: Rafik Dammak Cc: Joana Varon; Lee W McKnight; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < governance at lists.igcaucus.org; NCSG List Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 It takes a lot more to get me excited, Rafik! A lot more... :) frt rgds --c.a. On 10/10/2013 11:39 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > I understand your excitement and pride as Brazilian but as Tunisian I > am more cautious with what my gov can claim :) (I would instead wait > till marco civil to be voted to celebrate for example but yes I am not > familiar with Brazilian internal politics) not sure what is your take > regarding IGF, ywa you are talking about interesting process , but we > dont have such process now and it looks more as an interpretation and > wish than something concrete. are you looking to replace IGF by a > summit yet to be defined? > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/10 Carlos A. Afonso > > > I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the IGF. We > need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on international IG, > and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead of just becoming > suspicious, let us work proactively together to make sure we have strong > representation in this process. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/09/2013 10:33 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hello, > > > > maybe I will looks quite cautious against the enthusiasm and > excitement > > emerging here, but listening to Fadi short message, I am wondering > about > > the meaning of openness since he is talking about "leaders" of > > governments, civil society etc (I think that is alarm bell for those > > familiar to his speeches). it may look like the WEF of IG more > than IGF > > alike. > > while we are still having heated discussion about the "inflation" of > > conference and venues like Cyber Conf in seoul , how can we > welcome such > > summit? > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2013/10/10 Joana Varon > > >> > > > > Very interesting and very crazy (in a good way, I guess). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Lee W McKnight > > > >> wrote: > > > > Waiting for any UN process is not the way things like this > happen. > > > > Brazil + ICANN = critical mass for a next phase process. > > Agenda-setting moment was President Rousseff at UNGA, for > a new > > game which will reference those already played but need not be > > limited to process, schedule, or terms of prior phases. > > > > UN orgs will of course be invited and can participate, and the > > President will work around existing UN schedules to extent > > feasible, but boxing the new thing into the old schedule is > > probably not what was just agreed. > > > > My 2 cents of veteran but perhaps off-base global policy > process > > assessment. > > > > Lee > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > > > > [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > > >] on behalf of Joana > > Varon [joana at varonferraz.com > >] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 5:59 PM > > *To:* Carlos A. Afonso > > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > >> < > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > >; NCSG List > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host > > world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > > > I was a bit puzzled in terms of UN processes. Could it be the > > red interrogation mark on our visualization map? > > > > http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html > > > > I mean, does she has to wait for Sharm el Sheik meeting on the > > WSIS+10 process? Or we can have a summit completely > independent? > > During MPP phase 2 meeting this week it was evident that > Brazil > > wanted a high level event after sharm el sheik, but I didnt > > envision a Summit coming and I wonder if both processes > will be > > connected. > > > > On Oct 9, 2013 6:46 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > > >> wrote: > > > > [sorry for possible duplicate posts] > > > > Dear people > > > > Here is the Google Translate English version (I did some > > editing) of the > > official report on the meeting between President Rousseff > > and ICANN's > > President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, which just happened. > > > > The original version in Brazilian Portuguese is at the > end. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35107&sid=4&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.UlXEbbOm1q8 > > > > Brazil will host world event on Internet governance > > > > >From the editor :: Convergência Digital :: 09/10/2013 > > > > Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the > > necessary changes to > > Internet governance. After meeting with the president > of the > > Internet > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its > > acronym in > > English), Fadi Chehadé, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to > > meet global > > leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. > > > > According to Chehadé, the world counts on Brazil's > > leadership on this > > issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening > > of the 68th > > UN General Assembly, held in September in the United > States. > > "The world > > heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep > > conviction, with > > great courage, and expressed the frustration that many > > people around the > > world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we > > have with the > > Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the > speech by > > Dilma was > > the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. > > > > Chehadé cited allegations of espionage involving the > > communication of > > Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very > > president, > > Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to > > ask the > > president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to > > ensure that we > > can all get together around a new model of governance in > > which all are > > equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future > > decisions on > > how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the > > principles of > > the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil > which > > is going > > through the National Congress. > > > > Fadi Chehadé was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications > > Minister Paulo > > Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions > > about changes > > in the governance of the Internet, and said that the > > arrangements should > > begin this year. According to him, the need for a new > > governing body of > > the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, > > not just the > > government. > > > > "I understand that the internet has a new feature that > > requires active > > participation by governments, their respective agencies > > within the > > United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil > > society, the > > technicians, who after all make the Internet work," > Chehadé > > defended. > > For the president of the corporation, academics and > > industrialists need > > to participate in the debate, as they reflect on > rights and > > carry out > > the management of the Internet infrastructure. > > > > The president of Icann said telecommunications companies > > must also > > attend the conference."They are integral part of the > family > > with which > > we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, > > President Dilma > > agreed that changes in network governance must occur > > multilaterally and > > with the participation of all actors who engage the > > internet, and said > > that "we must not allow economic, political and religious > > interests to > > interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister > > said that the > > suggestion of the president is that the event be held in > > April 2014 in > > Rio de Janeiro. > > > > Source : Agência Brazil > > > > -------- original in pt-br ------------- > > > > O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir > as mudanças > > necessárias para a governança da internet. Após se > encontrar > > com o > > presidente da Corporação da Internet para Atribuição de > > Nomes e Números > > (Icann, na sigla em inglês), Fadi Chehadé, a presidenta > > Dilma Rousseff > > concordou em reunir líderes globais de diferentes setores > > interessados > > no tema. > > > > De acordo com Chehadé, o mundo conta com a liderança > > brasileira nesta > > questão, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff > discursou na > > abertura da > > 68ª Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos > > Estados Unidos. “O > > mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com > profunda > > convicção, > > com muita coragem, e externou a frustração que muitas > > pessoas, em todo > > mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confiança havia sido > > quebrada que > > temos com relação à internet”, disse, revelando que o > > discurso de Dilma > > foi a motivação da sua proposta para o encontro. > > > > Chehadé citou as denúncias de espionagem envolvendo a > > comunicação de > > autoridades e cidadãos brasileiros, dentre eles a própria > > presidenta, a > > Petrobras e o Ministério de Minas e Energia. “Vim > solicitar > > à presidenta > > que elevasse sua liderança a um novo nível, de modo a > > assegurar que > > todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de > > governança, em > > que todos sejamos iguais”, afirmou. O presidente da Icann > > disse que as > > futuras decisões sobre como os líderes poderão gerir a > > internet devem > > ter como base os princípios do marco civil brasileiro, que > > tramita no > > Congresso Nacional. > > > > Fadi Chehadé esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das > > Comunicações, Paulo > > Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os > > debates sobre > > mudanças na governança da internet, e disse que as > > articulações devem > > começar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo > > órgão gestor da > > internet passa pela participação de múltiplos atores, > não só > > do governo. > > > > “Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige > > participação > > ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos > órgãos no > > âmbito das > > Nações Unidas, mas também no âmbito dos usuários, da > > sociedade civil, > > dos técnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet > > funcionar”, defendeu > > Chehadé. Para o presidente da corporação, os acadêmicos e > > industriais > > precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o > direito > > e fazem a > > gestão da infraestrutura da internet. > > > > O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de > > telecomunicações devem > > também participar da conferência. “Elas são parte > integrante > > da família > > com a qual precisamos trabalhar”, afirmou. Segundo Paulo > > Bernardo, a > > presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudanças na > governança da > > rede devem > > ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participação de > todos > > os atores > > que se envolvem a internet, e disse que não se pode > > “permitir que > > interesses econômicos, políticos e religiosos > interfiram na > > livre > > circulação das ideias”. O ministro informou que a sugestão > > da presidenta > > é que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. > > > > fonte: Agência Brasil > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 15:31:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:31:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <154201cec5ef$4b061af0$e11250d0$@gmail.com> Hi Joana, .and of course, the grass is always greener. But just as it was the right thing to do to endorse Dilma's UN speech (and who knows what positive impact that may have had with her or with the Montevideo crew) and putting our collective shoulder to that wheel could not but have had some influence on what I see as the very positive outcome of the Montevideo statement and the meeting next April. So endorsing a meeting which so clearly breaks through the status quo bubble within which Internet governance has been held captive and suborned to the evident security and other interests of certain parties (and which the next round at Bali would have done little to correct); while perhaps a wee bit of a move based on faith (but also based on a positive recent national track record in these areas), I think it is a reasonable step to take and perhaps provides us with an opening for participation/dialogue from the beginning which might otherwise not have been available. M From: Joana Varon [mailto:joana at varonferraz.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:01 PM Dear people, For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the Summit??) In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. All the best joana On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 10 15:36:45 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:36:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> Message-ID: <6931E03D-B346-423F-B933-5C174E2B5FE2@acm.org> hi, why not use the etherpad capability? avri On 10 Oct 2013, at 13:06, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Update: There has been good discussion on the BestBits list on drafting > a letter that would express interest in a positive way and request that > international civil society should be included in the preparatory > process. > > Michael Gurstein has volunteered to participate in creating the initial > draft and more recently I have also volunteered. I think that for > creating an initial draft, it is best for the drafting group to be > small, but it would be great to have someone from Brazil on that little > team. > > Who volunteers? > > Informal creation of such an initial draft will of course have to be > followed by a formal consensus process, in order for IGC to be able to > formally endorse the resulting letter. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:34:33 +0200 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > >> Hmm.. I'd suggest that it will probably be an important step to find >> out who specifically will be in charge on the Brazilian government's >> side of the preparations for this event. >> >> We should then communicate to that person. >> >> In fact we could begin to draft content for such a letter from the IGC >> before we know who the specific addressee is going to be. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:01:06 -0300 >> schrieb "Carlos A. Afonso" : >> >>> This is a question for the whole group. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 10/10/2013 08:57 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the >>>>> IGF. We need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on >>>>> international IG, and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead >>>>> of just becoming suspicious, let us work proactively together to >>>>> make sure we have strong representation in this process. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Do you have advice on how to go about making sure that we have >>>> strong representation? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 10 15:58:03 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:58:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] CGI.br resolution in support of the letter of international orgs to Dilma Rousseff Message-ID: <525706CB.7080300@cafonso.ca> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Oct 10 16:03:52 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 16:03:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Will participate remotely in the November WGEC meeting Message-ID: <833397CD-0486-4B17-A405-4A157EE40C8F@ella.com> Hi Since the IGC is one of those who put my name forward for the WGEC, I want to let the group know that I have notified the WGEC chair that I will be attending the November meeting remotely. The meeting overlaps with the IETF meeting (week of 4 Nov - I had notified the chair of the conflict earlier), and because the IETF meeting is going to kick off work that focuses a lot of attention on what can be done at the protocol level about PRISM and other assorted horrors, and because it is part of one of my day jobs, I will be attending the IETF meeting in person by day in Vancouver and will be attending the WGEC in Geneva remotely by night. Fortunately they are 9 hours offset from each other so it should be temporally possible. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raul at lacnic.net Thu Oct 10 16:20:59 2013 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:20:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Carlos: I agree with you that the President Rousseff position is of course not based on the Montevideo statement. It should be very very arrogant to think that. Dilma's speech in UN and the Montevideo Statement are independent but related events that fortunately seems to be converging, and the meeting between Fadi and Dilma is an expression of that. Raúl El 10/10/2013, a las 15:11, Carlos A. Afonso escribió: > Dear compa McT, > > You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical > view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who > feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete > proposals to finally move on. > > At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's > statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of > civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio > program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary > framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting > of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think > Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and > entered to sell that proposal? :) > > Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet > another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called > IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major > achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort > jointly with BR. > > All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within > the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of > the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of > governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the > transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. > Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those > principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar > proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal > disputes as well. > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >> At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >> "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we >> hold next year a Global Summit" >> >> Seem fairly clear to me. >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just >>>>> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting >>>>> that into play… >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite >>>>> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my >>>>> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >>>>> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) rules >>>>> and regs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it >>>> is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 16:44:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:44:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] EFF Resigns from Global Network Initiative In-Reply-To: References: <5256C916.7070008@eff.org> Message-ID: <15a601cec5f9$8ee42cd0$acac8670$@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: EFF Press Date: Thursday, October 10, 2013 Subject: [E-B] EFF Resigns from Global Network Initiative To: presslist at eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Release For Immediate Release: Thursday, October 10, 2013 Contact: Jillian C. York Director for International Freedom of Expression Electronic Frontier Foundation jillian at eff.org +1 415 436-9333 x118 EFF Resigns from Global Network Initiative Citing Concerns Over NSA's Impact on Corporate Members, EFF Leaves Industry Group San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today withdrew from the Global Network Initiative (GNI), citing a fundamental breakdown in confidence that the group's corporate members are able to speak freely about their own internal privacy and security systems in the wake of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance revelations. EFF has been a civil society member of the multi-stakeholder human rights group since GNI was founded in 2008 to advance freedom of expression and privacy in the global information and communication technologies sector. While much has been accomplished in these five years, EFF can no longer sign its name on joint statements knowing now that GNI's corporate members have been blocked from sharing crucial information about how the US government has meddled with these companies' security practices through programs such as PRISM and BULLRUN. "We know that many within the industry do not like or approve of such government interference, and GNI has, in statements, made it clear that member companies want permission from the US government to engage in greater transparency," EFF's International Director Danny O'Brien and Director for International Freedom of Expression Jillian C. York write in a letter to GNI leadership. "However, until serious reforms of the US surveillance programs are in place, we no longer feel comfortable participating in the GNI process when we are not privy to the serious compromises GNI corporate members may be forced to make. Nor do we currently believe that audits of corporate practice, no matter how independent, will uncover the insecurities produced by the US government's--and potentially other governments'--behavior when operating clandestinely in the name of national security." EFF's involvement with GNI included helping to define its founding principles over two years of negotiations; coordinating opposition to the United Kingdom's Communications Data Bill in 2011; releasing a paper addressing free-speech issues surrounding account deactivation and content removal; and collaborating with fellow members in internal international technical and policy analysis. However, EFF can no longer stand behind the credibility of what had been one of GNI's most significant achievements--third-party privacy and freedom of expression assessments of service providers, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Moving forward, EFF plans to continue to provide guidance to the GNI and engage companies directly, but as an external organization. EFF supports the other organizations and individuals that continue to work within the GNI for the free speech and privacy rights of users worldwide. "Although EFF is taking a step back, GNI can still serve an important role as a collaborative project between human rights groups, companies, investors and academics," York said. "If the United States government truly supports international 'Internet freedom,' it would recognize the damage its policies are doing to weaken such efforts and the world's confidence in American companies." For the text of the letter: https://www.eff.org/document/gni-resignation-letter-0 For this release: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-resigns-global-network-initiative About EFF The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading organization protecting civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, we defend free speech online, fight illegal surveillance, promote the rights of digital innovators, and work to ensure that the rights and freedoms we enjoy are enhanced, rather than eroded, as our use of technology grows. EFF is a member-supported organization. Find out more at https://www.eff.org. -end- _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe or manage your email options: https://mail1.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/presslist Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 17:02:28 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:02:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Raul, On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > > Carlos: > > I agree with you that the President Rousseff position is of course not based on the Montevideo statement. It should be very very arrogant to think that. as well as not physically possible (unless you had a time machine). My point to Carlos and MG was that the T&A are taking the lead on this in the spirit of "continuing cooperation". My reaction was also motivated by Jeremy saying; "It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation." Which is 180 degrees different from my analysis. It seems to me that ISOC and the other Montevideo signatories are stronger in the WGEC becasue of these 2 events. Would it be possible to disclose if the Summit was discussed in Montevideo? -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Thu Oct 10 17:13:44 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 21:13:44 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <6B129299-0907-4D37-A614-9DCF73722D89@acm.org> <5256F28A.7090305@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <7BA50BC9-49A3-4FFA-80B9-E864E15080F3@arin.net> At 20:31 10/10/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Avri, so did (or it seems to have done) the ARIN fellow. This was signed > as a statement of the "leaders" of whatever, so it saves them in a > certain way from having their ears pulled when they return to their home > bases, so to speak. Just to be clear - ARIN fully supports the Montevideo Statement; it was signed by me, but it was also approved in advance by the ARIN Board (which happened quite quickly as the positions therein were already positions of public record of ARIN and discussed with our members.) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wbenhassine at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 17:35:07 2013 From: wbenhassine at gmail.com (Wafa Ben Hassine) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:35:07 -0600 Subject: [governance] Open letter to Arab IGF Message-ID: Hi all, I am new on this list, but I have been greatly enjoying and benefiting from all the discussions thus far. Very informative, especially for a newcomer such as myself. I wanted to share with you all an open letter that a few of my colleagues and I drafted for the 2nd annual Arab IGF. We read the statement out loud during a plenary session at the Arab IGF, and the response we got was quite expected. The letter can be found here: http://igfarab.net/?lang=en. Some old school censorship techniques were used *during* the conference itself - such as a security agent, dressed in civil clothing, standing right in front of Mohamed Najem (my colleague who read the statement), preventing anyone from taking pictures or videos of him as he read it... Then we got negative feedback from folks who are more closely linked to state actors in MENA (Lebanon, Algeria)... I was personally attacked by a woman working within the Lebanese Ministry of Telecommunications on how using the domain name "http://igfarab.net " for our Open Letter is "dishonest". I felt like there was animosity and suspicion from state actors directed at civil society actors participating in the Forum. It was my first IGF. Regards, Wafa -- Wafa Ben Hassine J.D. Candidate 2015 University of Denver Sturm College of Law p: +1 720 412 5216 email | twitter | blog *Think Green* - Please consider the planet before printing this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 17:50:36 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:50:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <000c01cec602$c79d4490$56d7cdb0$@gmail.com> My take is that many in the technical community are feeling appalled and betrayed by what they/we have learned through Snowden. These are folks who helped build the tech of the Internet not for dotcom millions or to support one foreign/security policy or another but rather because they believed that the capacity for networking and communications that they were enabling would contribute to human betterment (and I would guess, for the sheer joy of solving the technical problems involved. They more than anyone else now feel the sting of betrayal both professional (what were they building) and personal (who was telling them the truth and who wasn't) and they even more than others realize how much of the Internet was built on trust and continues to operate on the basis of trust, how fragile trust is, how quickly it disappears and how difficult it is to rebuild it (and whatever else relies on it) when it is gone. The notice from the EFF concerning its withdrawal from the GNI, I just circulated is perhaps the first among many such formal withdrawals of trust and long term collaborations because of what has been revealed by Snowden but most definitely not the last. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:02 PM To: Raul Echeberria Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Raul, On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > > Carlos: > > I agree with you that the President Rousseff position is of course not based on the Montevideo statement. It should be very very arrogant to think that. as well as not physically possible (unless you had a time machine). My point to Carlos and MG was that the T&A are taking the lead on this in the spirit of "continuing cooperation". My reaction was also motivated by Jeremy saying; "It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community (ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation." Which is 180 degrees different from my analysis. It seems to me that ISOC and the other Montevideo signatories are stronger in the WGEC becasue of these 2 events. Would it be possible to disclose if the Summit was discussed in Montevideo? -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Oct 10 18:35:39 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:35:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Neelie Kroes affirms Rousseff's positions, and adds some fire of her own Message-ID: Is the EU Commission working for European citizens, or international lobbies ? Have a look to Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/international/european-officials-consulted-business-leaders-on-trade-pact-with-us.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0 and to http://www.lobbycharter.eu/ click on ▼ signs to get more info An *ACTA *remake ? IG a cover up ? Watch out. Louis - - - On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM, parminder wrote: > First Rousseff's UN speech, then the Montevideo statement, then the > declaration of the new Brazil - ICANN initiative, and now this.... Becoming > a kind of a snowball effect. The question it, would this hold and be strong > enough to be able to change the very entrenched status quo of power in > global IG. The WGEC meeting in early Nov will be one place to find out if > people are ready to put their money where their mouth is..... parminder Internet > Governance: I want your views! > Published by Neelie KROESon Wednesday, 09/10/2013 > > [..] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 19:23:45 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:23:45 +1200 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> Message-ID: <00FDAF2B-B862-4D00-9CBA-42ACEC68F3AA@gmail.com> My personal view is that the coordinators can draft a letter and send it to the Brazillian govt as well as Fadi. The draft can be circulated to the IGC list for quick edits. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 11, 2013, at 5:06 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Update: There has been good discussion on the BestBits list on drafting > a letter that would express interest in a positive way and request that > international civil society should be included in the preparatory > process. > > Michael Gurstein has volunteered to participate in creating the initial > draft and more recently I have also volunteered. I think that for > creating an initial draft, it is best for the drafting group to be > small, but it would be great to have someone from Brazil on that little > team. > > Who volunteers? > > Informal creation of such an initial draft will of course have to be > followed by a formal consensus process, in order for IGC to be able to > formally endorse the resulting letter. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:34:33 +0200 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > >> Hmm.. I'd suggest that it will probably be an important step to find >> out who specifically will be in charge on the Brazilian government's >> side of the preparations for this event. >> >> We should then communicate to that person. >> >> In fact we could begin to draft content for such a letter from the IGC >> before we know who the specific addressee is going to be. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> Am Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:01:06 -0300 >> schrieb "Carlos A. Afonso" : >> >>> This is a question for the whole group. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>>> On 10/10/2013 08:57 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> I personally do hope it will *not* look like *nor* do like the >>>>> IGF. We need a pluriparticipative decision-making process on >>>>> international IG, and maybe this is the way to start it. Instead >>>>> of just becoming suspicious, let us work proactively together to >>>>> make sure we have strong representation in this process. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Do you have advice on how to go about making sure that we have >>>> strong representation? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 19:36:40 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:36:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <00FDAF2B-B862-4D00-9CBA-42ACEC68F3AA@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <00FDAF2B-B862-4D00-9CBA-42ACEC68F3AA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Are we doing a letter or are we going to let BB do it and then say Y/N? rgds, McTim -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 19:44:26 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:44:26 +1200 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <00FDAF2B-B862-4D00-9CBA-42ACEC68F3AA@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think we should do a letter as the IGC. Coordinators can draft and we can send to list to give quick feedback. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 11, 2013, at 11:36 AM, McTim wrote: > > Are we doing a letter or are we going to let BB do it and then say Y/N? > > rgds, > > McTim -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Oct 10 20:02:24 2013 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:02:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Message-ID: BB is the one holding a meeting. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: McTim Date: 10/10/2013 19:36 (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Are we doing a letter or are we going to let BB do it and then say Y/N? rgds, McTim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Oct 10 20:26:44 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:26:44 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. Ian Peter From: Deborah Brown Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM To: Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear all, I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the initiative at this point. The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and head of ICANN. To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion around this important development. Best regards, Deborah On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Dear all 1.. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive that the current IGF 2.. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". 3.. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. 4.. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in the summit 5.. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation 6.. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: 1.. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the idea, and not the institutions 2.. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage 3.. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder principle 4.. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing 5.. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals 6.. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope the idea itself. Best Nnenna On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: Dear people, For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the Summit??) In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. All the best joana On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 10 22:15:38 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:15:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 02:26 11/10/2013, Ian Peter wrote: >I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information >emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have >a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely >attendees, and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite >likely more information will emerge in the next week or so, >therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then try to >find out a little more. +1 John Curan, Russ Housley, etc. have documented that they have discussed the Montevideo statement with their boards however it only presented their long standing position. In the CS case there is no long standing position since the situation is new. It would neither be nor look serious not to democractically proceed, after having listen to all the inputs from Seoul, Bali, the WGEC preparation, the EU positions, etc. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 10 23:23:23 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:23:23 +1200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <88A5AF3A-C3B1-4D7B-A510-B2A4CC9B026D@gmail.com> Here is a suggested draft: We have been following the developments and reports of a World Internet Governance meeting in Brazil in 2014. We would like clarification as to whether this is separate from the Annual Internet Governance Forum or the same. We acknowledge the diverse surmounting issues on internet governance. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus comprises of members from around the world and we would like the opportunity to be included in the mailing list for the planned meeting and to allow us to nominate civil society representatives to represent us in the continued deliberations. We would also like to seek clarification on the scope of the meeting and the general objectives of such a meeting and what the focus areas of discussion would be. Yours faithfully, .......................... > On Oct 11, 2013, at 2:15 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > > At 02:26 11/10/2013, Ian Peter wrote: >> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. > > +1 > > John Curan, Russ Housley, etc. have documented that they have discussed the Montevideo statement with their boards however it only presented their long standing position. In the CS case there is no long standing position since the situation is new. It would neither be nor look serious not to democractically proceed, after having listen to all the inputs from Seoul, Bali, the WGEC preparation, the EU positions, etc. > > jfc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 10 23:52:49 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:52:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <88A5AF3A-C3B1-4D7B-A510-B2A4CC9B026D@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <88A5AF3A-C3B1-4D7B-A510-B2A4CC9B026D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52577611.9080605@ciroap.org> On 11/10/13 11:23, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Here is a suggested draft: > > > We have been following the developments and reports of a World Internet Governance meeting in Brazil in 2014. We would like clarification as to whether this is separate from the Annual Internet Governance Forum or the same. > > We acknowledge the diverse surmounting issues on internet governance. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus comprises of members from around the world and we would like the opportunity to be included in the mailing list for the planned meeting and to allow us to nominate civil society representatives to represent us in the continued deliberations. > > We would also like to seek clarification on the scope of the meeting and the general objectives of such a meeting and what the focus areas of discussion would be. There is an existing text in preparation on the etherpad at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 - maybe you should merge this into it? Though, the prevailing view seems to be not to dash off a letter immediately, but to develop more of a civil society agenda for it, online from now and at Best Bits in Bali, and to issue the letter after that. On a more substantive point, there seems no indication that the proposed summit will be part of the IGF, though that is not such a terrible suggestion provided that the MAG's and IGF Secretariat's hands can be kept out of it. We don't want them messing up yet another global Internet forum (no offence intended to MAG members!). -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 00:03:03 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:03:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52577611.9080605@ciroap.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <88A5AF3A-C3B1-4D7B-A510-B2A4CC9B026D@gmail.com> <52577611.9080605@ciroap.org> Message-ID: > > There is an existing text in preparation on the etherpad at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 - maybe you should merge this into it? I am just about to catch a flight and am on mobile hence limited ability to use tye etherpad. > Though, the prevailing view seems to be not to dash off a letter immediately, but to develop more of a civil society agenda for it, online from now and at Best Bits in Bali, and to issue the letter after that. > Hence seeking clarification now to enable us to develop an agenda. this is what the tone of my suggested draft aims to canvas. > On a more substantive point, there seems no indication that the proposed summit will be part of the IGF, though that is not such a terrible suggestion provided that the MAG's and IGF Secretariat's hands can be kept out of it. We don't want them messing up yet another global Internet forum (no offence intended to MAG members!). > ( no comment :/) > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 02:07:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:37:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> It is here http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus document of demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and strong letter, of a few sentences, that Brazilian President or some top guy would actually read, and not get confusing messages. I am not saying we should not say whatever we definitively want to say - but be clear and short, that is all. parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing here? > can you please clarify? > > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/11 parminder > > > > Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of > essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over > today and try to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the > day.... We do very much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by > consensus, but it doesnt happen we would open it to organisations > and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a practice I > normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok that we > can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, > with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - > potential game changer - initiative from a developing country, a > paralysis seems to be setting in)... > > parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a tide/ in >> the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to >> fortune"... >> >> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize >> it.... President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, >> somewhat a regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her >> hands, even announced the like month etc.. That is what gave it >> such a sudden high prominence, and people are celebrating >> Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards well, Brazil have >> now got an edge.... which it can use to further its interest... >> >> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests >> - real interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and >> we have to take our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be >> eternally paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are >> real differences of views, well, that counts.... But a permanent >> simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no good... >> >> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what >> gains we can make... And others must also contribute what they >> think are risks or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure >> yet, tells talk more, do face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I >> think, just my own view, is not the appropriate response. >> >> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy >> up to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal >> for democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon >> present - BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG >> issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a >> real dialogue to see what needs to be changed about the global >> governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately seizes the >> initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like >> that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that >> has happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is >> nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit >> to if they support this proposal. >> >> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change >> in global governance of the Internet should take place with some >> urgency, >> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a >> hidden manner, >> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from >> one of the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real >> change' - and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main >> symbol and defender of status quo,and that >> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of >> all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... >> >> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the >> proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly >> withdraw our support, saying this is not at all what we >> bargained for) >> >> So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a >> statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, >> when people are still wondering what kind of initiative it really >> is, and with what implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind >> of make this thing somewhat trilateral from its current >> bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may not >> succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative >> would already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for >> civil society support to have this kind of impact.... >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information >>> emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we >>> have a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, >>> likely attendees, and possible processes for the conference. >>> It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the next week >>> or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before >>> then try to find out a little more. >>> Ian Peter >>> *From:* Deborah Brown >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: >>> Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>> Dear all, >>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit >>> concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter >>> before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I >>> wonder if it might make more sense to continue this discussion >>> online and take advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for >>> those of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others >>> have pointed out, we know so little about the initiative at this >>> point. >>> The draft text (available here: >>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture >>> the cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I >>> also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" >>> of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet >>> complete. Of course the text of the letter could change >>> dramatically in just a few hours ;) >>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow >>> on communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it >>> might be more effective to streamline our communication to the >>> Brazilian president and head of ICANN. >>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the >>> iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors >>> I mentioned above, I would support taking some extra time if we >>> need it. In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' >>> ideas and continuing the discussion around this important >>> development. >>> Best regards, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the >>> civil society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" >>> more open and inclusive that the current IGF >>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in >>> any way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and >>> ICANN's push". >>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that >>> are working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG >>> and Internet issues intend to play key roles in the >>> summit. >>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to >>> pursue in the summit >>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder >>> participation >>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse >>> roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will >>> be dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. >>> >>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS >>> Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can >>> use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of >>> the WS is on >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>> >>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back >>> online and I'm happy to contribute language if any text >>> begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: >>> >>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, >>> which is the idea, and not the institutions >>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the >>> Multistakeholder principle >>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement >>> proposals >>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us >>> scope the idea itself. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> For the level of information I have (which is basically: >>> Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on >>> Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the >>> meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential >>> elections period), I don't feel comfortable about >>> writing a letter congratulating for something I dont >>> really know what it is. >>> >>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start >>> working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be >>> much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what >>> do we want from all this besides participating in the >>> Summit??) >>> >>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and >>> discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian >>> colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see >>> what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the >>> government will bring to our table very soon (if it >>> truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at >>> the UNGA). >>> >>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious >>> position, but I really need more inputs to see the big >>> picture. >>> All the best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein >>> > wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> ] On >>> Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso >>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>> To: McTim >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ; michael >>> gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik >>> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >,; NCSG List >>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >>> Chehade: Brazil will >>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>> >>> Dear compa McT, >>> >>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not >>> change your logical view... >>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all >>> sectors who feel >>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its >>> concrete proposals to >>> finally move on. >>> >>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation >>> -- Rousseff's statement >>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic >>> principles most of civil society >>> defends (which she has repeated several times in her >>> radio program and her >>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a >>> planetary framework of >>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a >>> meeting of IP addressers >>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think >>> Fadi just dropped by the >>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered >>> to sell that proposal? :) >>> >>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is >>> not a proposal for yet >>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN >>> chatting space called IGF, >>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a >>> major achievement that >>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort >>> jointly with BR. >>> >>> All the more so because, as you know, there are >>> strong sectors within the >>> government who would love to bring the root-zone to >>> the purview of the ITU, >>> who hate Icann, who do not like the >>> pluriparticipative model of governance >>> we defend, and who are basically associated with the >>> transnational telecom >>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, >>> to defend those >>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the >>> meeting with thar >>> proposal was a major political milestone for her in >>> those internal disputes >>> as well. >>> >>> [] fraterno >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted >>> our invitation that we >>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>> > >>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >>> > wrote: >>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times >>> more... :) >>> >> >>> >> --c.a. >>> >> >>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael >>> gurstein >> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may >>> be wrong but this >>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to >>> Fadi for getting this >>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. >>> of Brazil is going >>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year >>> to discuss names and >>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is >>> by-passing the quite >>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of >>> the IGF, the now >>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the >>> status quo which it >>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) >>> rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again >>> several times that >>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the >>> Montevideoans) that are >>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of >>> the Summit comes from >>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> rightscon.org >>> >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 01:32:05 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:02:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a tide/ in the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its interest... Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no good... Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains we can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the appropriate response. ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support this proposal. In supporting it, we would only be saying - (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden manner, (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of status quo,and that (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, saying this is not at all what we bargained for) So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society support to have this kind of impact.... Parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. > We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better > idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, > and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more > information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we > should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. > Ian Peter > *From:* Deborah Brown > *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM > *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > Dear all, > I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned > that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of > us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make > more sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of > the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop > a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about > the initiative at this point. > The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) > does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people > have expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest > endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet > complete. Of course the text of the letter could change dramatically > in just a few hours ;) > I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on > communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be > more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian > president and head of ICANN. > To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is > hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned > above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any > case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the > discussion around this important development. > Best regards, > Deborah > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > Dear all > > 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil > society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open > and inclusive that the current IGF > 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way > understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". > 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are > working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and > Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. > 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue > in the summit > 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation > 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles > that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated > to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. > > If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS > Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use > that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 > > I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online > and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to > surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: > > 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is > the idea, and not the institutions > 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage > 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder > principle > 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing > 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals > 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope > the idea itself. > > Best > > Nnenna > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon > > wrote: > > Dear people, > > For the level of information I have (which is basically: > Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet > after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on > Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), > I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating > for something I dont really know what it is. > > But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on > our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, > during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all > this besides participating in the Summit??) > > In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and > discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian > colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what > is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will > bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the > principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). > > I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious > position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. > All the best > > joana > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein > > wrote: > > +1 > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] On Behalf Of > Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM > To: McTim > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; michael gurstein; > Lee W McKnight; Rafik > Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >,; NCSG List > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & > Chehade: Brazil will > host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Dear compa McT, > > You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change > your logical view... > :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all > sectors who feel > disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its > concrete proposals to > finally move on. > > At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- > Rousseff's statement > at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles > most of civil society > defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio > program and her > twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary > framework of > rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting > of IP addressers > in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi > just dropped by the > presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell > that proposal? :) > > Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a > proposal for yet > another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting > space called IGF, > as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major > achievement that > that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort > jointly with BR. > > All the more so because, as you know, there are strong > sectors within the > government who would love to bring the root-zone to the > purview of the ITU, > who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative > model of governance > we defend, and who are basically associated with the > transnational telecom > oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. > Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to > defend those > principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the > meeting with thar > proposal was a major political milestone for her in those > internal disputes > as well. > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our > invitation that we > > hold next year a Global Summit" > > > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > > wrote: > >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times > more... :) > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein > > > wrote: > >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be > wrong but this > >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for > getting this > >>>> going and putting that into play. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of > Brazil is going > >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to > discuss names and > >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing > the quite > >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the > IGF, the now > >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status > quo which it > >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules > and regs. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again > several times that > >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the > Montevideoans) that are > >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the > Summit comes from > >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 01:45:14 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:45:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing here? can you please clarify? Rafik 2013/10/11 parminder > > Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of essense, > some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try to > present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very much > hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would > open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a > practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok that we > can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, with all > kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential game > changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to be > setting in)... > > parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: > > Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is *a tide* in the *affairs > of men*. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... > > Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... > President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a > regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced > the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, > and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards > well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its > interest... > > Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real > interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take > our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which > hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that > counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no > good... > > Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains we > can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks or > advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face > to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the > appropriate response. > > ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to > the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for > democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, > the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd > Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be > changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately > seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like > that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has > happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing > hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support > this proposal. > > In supporting it, we would only be saying - > (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in global > governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, > (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden manner, > (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of the > key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN > or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of status > quo,and that > (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all action, > as the dialogue shapes and takes place... > > Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed > meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, > saying this is not at all what we bargained for) > > So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, or > they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still > wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. > Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral > from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may > not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would > already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society > support to have this kind of impact.... > > Parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. We > can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea of > the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible > processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will > emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali > and before then try to find out a little more. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Deborah Brown > *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM > *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Dear all, > > I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned > that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us > travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more > sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the > in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS > agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the > initiative at this point. > > The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) > does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have > expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" > of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of > course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours > ;) > > I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on > communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more > effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and > head of ICANN. > > To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is hot" > and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, I > would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm > looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion > around this important development. > > Best regards, > Deborah > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> >> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil society, >> it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive that the >> current IGF >> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way >> understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". >> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are >> working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues >> intend to play key roles in the summit. >> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in >> the summit >> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation >> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles >> that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue >> during the BB meeting in Bali. >> >> >> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection >> processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to >> sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >> >> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and >> I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I >> do not, here are my ideas: >> >> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the >> idea, and not the institutions >> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder >> principle >> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals >> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope the >> idea itself. >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and >>> ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - >>> coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the >>> presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a >>> letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. >>> >>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda >>> online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings >>> in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the >>> Summit??) >>> >>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this >>> with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society >>> or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the >>> government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the >>> principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >>> >>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I >>> really need more inputs to see the big picture. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. >>>> Afonso >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>> To: McTim >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; >>>> Rafik >>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will >>>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>> >>>> Dear compa McT, >>>> >>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >>>> view... >>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel >>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals >>>> to >>>> finally move on. >>>> >>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >>>> statement >>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil >>>> society >>>> defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and >>>> her >>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of >>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP >>>> addressers >>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped >>>> by the >>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that >>>> proposal? :) >>>> >>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet >>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called >>>> IGF, >>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement >>>> that >>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. >>>> >>>> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within >>>> the >>>> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the >>>> ITU, >>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of >>>> governance >>>> we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational >>>> telecom >>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar >>>> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >>>> disputes >>>> as well. >>>> >>>> [] fraterno >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we >>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>> > >>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >>>> wrote: >>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>>> >> >>>> >> --c.a. >>>> >> >>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein < >>>> gurstein at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 01:39:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:09:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok that we can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential game changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to be setting in)... parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: > Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a tide/ in the > /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... > > Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... > President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a > regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even > announced the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high > prominence, and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it > plays its cards well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use > to further its interest... > > Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - > real interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have > to take our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally > paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are real differences > of views, well, that counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch > attitude would do us no good... > > Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains > we can make... And others must also contribute what they think are > risks or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk > more, do face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own > view, is not the appropriate response. > > ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up > to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for > democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - > BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN > GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see > what needs to be changed about the global governance of the Internet. > Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and even declares a > possible timeline, just like that, off-hand.... That is leadership > material. That is all that has happened, and that is all anyone knows > has happened. There is nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly > become complicit to if they support this proposal. > > In supporting it, we would only be saying - > (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in > global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, > (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden > manner, > (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of > the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - > and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and > defender of status quo,and that > (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all > action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... > > Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the > proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly > withdraw our support, saying this is not at all what we bargained for) > > So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a > statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when > people are still wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and > with what implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this > thing somewhat trilateral from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - > ICANN tech community) We may not succeed, but we must try. .... In a > few weeks, the initiative would already be too solidified in fact, or > in people's mind for civil society support to have this kind of impact.... > > Parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. >> We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better >> idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, >> and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more >> information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we >> should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. >> Ian Peter >> *From:* Deborah Brown >> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> Dear all, >> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit >> concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter >> before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if >> it might make more sense to continue this discussion online and take >> advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us >> attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, >> we know so little about the initiative at this point. >> The draft text (available here: >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture the >> cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I also have >> concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco >> Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of course the >> text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) >> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on >> communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be >> more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian >> president and head of ICANN. >> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is >> hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned >> above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any >> case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the >> discussion around this important development. >> Best regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma > > wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil >> society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open >> and inclusive that the current IGF >> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any >> way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". >> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are >> working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and >> Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. >> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue >> in the summit >> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation >> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse >> roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be >> dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. >> >> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS >> Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use >> that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is >> on >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >> >> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online >> and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to >> surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: >> >> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is >> the idea, and not the institutions >> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder >> principle >> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals >> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us >> scope the idea itself. >> >> Best >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon >> > wrote: >> >> Dear people, >> >> For the level of information I have (which is basically: >> Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet >> after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on >> Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), >> I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter >> congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. >> >> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on >> our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, >> during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from >> all this besides participating in the Summit??) >> >> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and >> discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian >> colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what >> is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will >> bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the >> principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >> >> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious >> position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. >> All the best >> >> joana >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein >> > wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] On Behalf >> Of Carlos A. Afonso >> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >> To: McTim >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; michael gurstein; >> Lee W McKnight; Rafik >> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >,; NCSG List >> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >> Chehade: Brazil will >> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Dear compa McT, >> >> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change >> your logical view... >> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all >> sectors who feel >> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its >> concrete proposals to >> finally move on. >> >> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- >> Rousseff's statement >> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles >> most of civil society >> defends (which she has repeated several times in her >> radio program and her >> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary >> framework of >> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting >> of IP addressers >> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi >> just dropped by the >> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to >> sell that proposal? :) >> >> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a >> proposal for yet >> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting >> space called IGF, >> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major >> achievement that >> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort >> jointly with BR. >> >> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong >> sectors within the >> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the >> purview of the ITU, >> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative >> model of governance >> we defend, and who are basically associated with the >> transnational telecom >> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to >> defend those >> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the >> meeting with thar >> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those >> internal disputes >> as well. >> >> [] fraterno >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our >> invitation that we >> > hold next year a Global Summit" >> > >> > Seem fairly clear to me. >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >> > wrote: >> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times >> more... :) >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein >> > >> wrote: >> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be >> wrong but this >> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi >> for getting this >> >>>> going and putting that into play. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of >> Brazil is going >> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to >> discuss names and >> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing >> the quite >> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the >> IGF, the now >> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the >> status quo which it >> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules >> and regs. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again >> several times that >> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the >> Montevideoans) that are >> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the >> Summit comes from >> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 11 00:06:42 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:06:42 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <88A5AF3A-C3B1-4D7B-A510-B2A4CC9B026D@gmail.com> <52577611.9080605@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52577952.7030500@ciroap.org> On 11/10/13 12:03, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> There is an existing text in preparation on the etherpad at >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 - maybe you should merge this >> into it? > > I am just about to catch a flight and am on mobile hence limited > ability to use tye etherpad. I'll have my hand at integrating your text. Safe flight! >> Though, the prevailing view seems to be not to dash off a letter >> immediately, but to develop more of a civil society agenda for it, >> online from now and at Best Bits in Bali, and to issue the letter >> after that. >> > Hence seeking clarification now to enable us to develop an agenda. > this is what the tone of my suggested draft aims to canvas. There are good arguments both ways. I'm easy with whatever consensus emerges. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 02:13:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 23:13:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <018f01cec648$fce5d9f0$f6b18dd0$@gmail.com> I agree… Somethng clear and crips that supports Dilma now, as the forces of opposition begin to get organized and that establishes us as a collaborator with her/them in this important enterprise. We can go into detail later if/when we have standing… But if we wait until later our likelihood of having signiificant standing is substantially diminished. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:39 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok that we can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential game changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to be setting in)... parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its interest... Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no good... Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains we can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the appropriate response. ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support this proposal. In supporting it, we would only be saying - (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden manner, (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of status quo,and that (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, saying this is not at all what we bargained for) So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society support to have this kind of impact.... Parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. Ian Peter From: Deborah Brown Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM To: Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear all, I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the initiative at this point. The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and head of ICANN. To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion around this important development. Best regards, Deborah On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: Dear all 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive that the current IGF 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in the summit 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the idea, and not the institutions 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder principle 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope the idea itself. Best Nnenna On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: Dear people, For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the Summit??) In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. All the best joana On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 11 04:01:08 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:01:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <00FDAF2B-B862-4D00-9CBA-42ACEC68F3AA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131011100108.3e2a4fe9@quill> McTim wrote: > Are we doing a letter or are we going to let BB do it and then say > Y/N? In my view there is a strong need to send a first letter very soon, early next week (the week before the IGF). My earlier posting in which I foresaw IGC participation in a BestBits style sign-on letter process was based on the understanding that the discussions on the BestBits list would lead to a letter in this timeframe. At the time, that was a reasonable understanding of the then-current state of discussion. The mood on the BestBits list seems to have shifted since then, now the general feeling on the BestBits list seems to be to use the in-person meeting in Bali to develop a substantive shared understanding, and then send a letter based on that. That is of course a reasonable plan to adopt for a group that is anyway and since a long time planning to hold an in-person two days gathering in Bali just a good week from now. Hence I propose that IGC goes ahead and drafts and sends very soon a first letter simply from IGC. This could IMO be a relatively simple letter, expressing appreciation and interest and requesting that international civil society not be left out from full and effective participation in the planned event and its preparatory process. I expect that BestBits will work out something more substantive, which may include already some civil society input to the agenda setting process. Things are totally in flux right now of course, but if that takes place during the in-person BestBits meeting in Bali, and if the usual BestBits approach is used to thereafter open the statements to endorsements, I'd expect it to be a Y/N decision for IGC whether to endorse that or not Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 11 04:39:18 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:39:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131011100108.3e2a4fe9@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <00FDAF2B-B862-4D00-9CBA-42ACEC68F3AA@gmail.com> <20131011100108.3e2a4fe9@quill> Message-ID: <5257B936.5010802@ciroap.org> On 11/10/13 16:01, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Hence I propose that IGC goes ahead and drafts and sends very soon a > first letter simply from IGC. This could IMO be a relatively simple > letter, expressing appreciation and interest and requesting that > international civil society not be left out from full and effective > participation in the planned event and its preparatory process. On the other hand, it is even harder for the IGC to agree on a letter than it is for Best Bits, since the IGC requires consensus. And there are enough IGC members saying "no" to the letter already that I wonder whether consensus will be possible... -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 04:45:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:15:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5257B936.5010802@ciroap.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <00FDAF2B-B862-4D00-9CBA-42ACEC68F3AA@gmail.com> <20131011100108.3e2a4fe9@quill> <5257B936.5010802@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5257BA94.6070901@itforchange.net> On Friday 11 October 2013 02:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/10/13 16:01, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Hence I propose that IGC goes ahead and drafts and sends very soon a >> first letter simply from IGC. This could IMO be a relatively simple >> letter, expressing appreciation and interest and requesting that >> international civil society not be left out from full and effective >> participation in the planned event and its preparatory process. > > On the other hand, it is even harder for the IGC to agree on a letter > than it is for Best Bits, since the IGC requires consensus. And there > are enough IGC members saying "no" to the letter already that I wonder > whether consensus will be possible... In default we can go for a sign on process, BestBits style.... Still it is good to hear views on this issue.... parminder > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 11 05:18:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:18:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Re: LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5257B936.5010802@ciroap.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <00FDAF2B-B862-4D00-9CBA-42ACEC68F3AA@gmail.com> <20131011100108.3e2a4fe9@quill> <5257B936.5010802@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131011111839.51d95aa2@quill> [the "DMP}" in the subject line indicates that this posting is intended to be part of an IGC Decision-Making Process. Specifically, I'm asking towards the end for any objections against the idea of a specific, simple kind of letter to be voiced.] Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/10/13 16:01, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Hence I propose that IGC goes ahead and drafts and sends very soon a > > first letter simply from IGC. This could IMO be a relatively simple > > letter, expressing appreciation and interest and requesting that > > international civil society not be left out from full and effective > > participation in the planned event and its preparatory process. > > On the other hand, it is even harder for the IGC to agree on a letter > than it is for Best Bits, since the IGC requires consensus. And there > are enough IGC members saying "no" to the letter already that I wonder > whether consensus will be possible... While I must admit that I have not analyzed every posting in great detail, I've read the discussion as BestBits participants desiring to use the in person gathering in Bali for gaining, through discussion, additional clarity on the new situation, and then sending a letter based on the outcome of that. I'm not at all opposed to that idea. In fact, I'm in favor of it. But from the IGC perspective [here I'm putting my IGC coordinator hat on for a moment] a BestBits plan to send a more substantive letter at a later point in time is not a reason for IGC not to send a simple letter already now based on the information and understanding that we have already know. [the following paragraph is written just in my personal capacity] Given that we already have a consensus decision supporting Brazil's policy statements at the UN GA which are what has led to this development, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to also get consensus or at least rough consensus to support the logical next step and at the same time say that it should please be inclusive of international civil society. I really don't see how that could reasonably be controversial now. It wouldn't commit us to anything. All it would do is (a) influence the discussions before the IGF and at the IGF in a positive way, and (b) if it should happen during the preparatory process for this event that things start might start going in a bad direction, our protests will have increased weight then if we build positive relationships now. [the following paragraph is with IGC coordinator hat on again] Is there any objection against IGC sending, early next week, a relatively simple letter expressing appreciation and interest and requesting that international civil society not be left out from full and effective participation in the planned event and its preparatory process? In case of any objection, the reasoning behind the objection should also be explained please. (Obviously, this inquiry about any objections against the fundamental idea of such a letter will, if no objections are mde, be followed by a consensus process for the text of the letter.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 11 06:32:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:32:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Impacts_of_=E2=80=9Cbig_data=E2=80=9D_anal?= =?UTF-8?Q?ysis_on_privacy?= Message-ID: <20131011123248.4a7809c2@quill> Some interesting thoughts from Joe McNamee of EDRi on the impacts of “big data” analysis on privacy: http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/data-protection-online-influence-analysis-530994 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 11 06:59:15 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:59:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5256E8B5.4050005@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <5256E8B5.4050005@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20131011125915.283b4214@quill> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > If the adressees are Dilma and Fadi, I can try to deliver to the > Presidenta as I see no reason I cannot do it again :) That sounds absolutely great!!! Do you see any specific opportunity for trying that kind of thing again during the course of next week (if possible preferably during the first half)? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 11 10:17:44 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:17:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] Panelist needed for WS 335 Privacy: from regional regulations to global connections? Message-ID: <10BE947B-E89E-49DD-806D-5C97BE455418@ciroap.org> I've been asked by a colleague to fill a slot in this workshop (not my workshop) on privacy: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=335 If anyone is capable and interested, please let me know off-list. Thanks. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 11 11:17:10 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:17:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52581676.3010908@cafonso.ca> I agree, except that I do not think any proposal coming from the Montevideo group would be arrogant. We are in this plural process and we ought to accept manifestations (individual or collective) of everyone -- and that group is highly qualified to provide propositions of course. The fact that I disagreed with a relatively minor part of its content does not at all in my view makes it less relevant. Let us try and, as you say, take advantage of this opportunity to do our best to converge. The IGF "chatting space" would be a great opportunity for groups, "tribes", communities etc to fine tune ideas and do concrete advances. fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/10/2013 05:20 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > > Carlos: > > I agree with you that the President Rousseff position is of course not based on the Montevideo statement. It should be very very arrogant to think that. > Dilma's speech in UN and the Montevideo Statement are independent but related events that fortunately seems to be converging, and the meeting between Fadi and Dilma is an expression of that. > > > Raúl > > > > > El 10/10/2013, a las 15:11, Carlos A. Afonso escribió: > >> Dear compa McT, >> >> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >> view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who >> feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete >> proposals to finally move on. >> >> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >> statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of >> civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio >> program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary >> framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting >> of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think >> Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and >> entered to sell that proposal? :) >> >> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet >> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called >> IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major >> achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort >> jointly with BR. >> >> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within >> the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of >> the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of >> governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the >> transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar >> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >> disputes as well. >> >> [] fraterno >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>> At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>> "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we >>> hold next year a Global Summit" >>> >>> Seem fairly clear to me. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this isn't just >>>>>> about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this going and putting >>>>>> that into play… >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going to invite >>>>>> the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and numbers. Rather my >>>>>> reading is that she is by-passing the quite evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>>>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >>>>>> the status quo which it was intended to cast into concrete errr… (non) rules >>>>>> and regs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that it >>>>> is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>>>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 11 11:19:33 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:19:33 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <7BA50BC9-49A3-4FFA-80B9-E864E15080F3@arin.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <6B129299-0907-4D37-A614-9DCF73722D89@acm.org> <5256F28A.7090305@cafonso.ca> <7BA50BC9-49A3-4FFA-80B9-E864E15080F3@arin.net> Message-ID: <52581705.2090205@cafonso.ca> Good to know, I guess I misinterpreted yous msg, thx John. --c.a. On 10/10/2013 06:13 PM, John Curran wrote: > At 20:31 10/10/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Avri, so did (or it seems to have done) the ARIN fellow. This was signed >> as a statement of the "leaders" of whatever, so it saves them in a >> certain way from having their ears pulled when they return to their home >> bases, so to speak. > > Just to be clear - > > ARIN fully supports the Montevideo Statement; it was signed > by me, but it was also approved in advance by the ARIN Board > (which happened quite quickly as the positions therein were > already positions of public record of ARIN and discussed with > our members.) > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 11 11:29:49 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:29:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process Message-ID: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting has taken place: --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the government of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet governance in 2014 Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the Brazilian government We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet governance. We look forward to learning more details of the event as they emerge and to contributing to this with specific and concrete proposals which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming meetings during the Bali IGF. The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world offer their support to your initiative and will look forward to partnering in its various processes as they evolve. We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and arrangements that develop from it. Yours sincerely --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and one that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has come out of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC members have already participated, I feel that it may be best to take this as the starting point for the IGC consensus process. The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that up also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to endorse. [with IGC coordinator hat on] Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask for this change. In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high priority and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I have no idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus process deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at least every twelve hours. The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such a letter to be voiced, is also still open. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 11:30:19 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:30:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, sorry I was not asking about the draft letter but more what I understood from your proposal is that we move quickly and spend time shorter than usual even if there are concerns . I want to be sure if I got you message correctly. I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am still not convinced and I want to highlight that any action we take, will have impact soon or later and can backfire. I don't think that you would disagree with more strategical approach. Best, Rafik 2013/10/11 parminder > It is here > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 > > Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus document of > demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and strong letter, of a few > sentences, that Brazilian President or some top guy would actually read, > and not get confusing messages. I am not saying we should not say whatever > we definitively want to say - but be clear and short, that is all. > > parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing here? can > you please clarify? > > > Rafik > > > 2013/10/11 parminder > >> >> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of >> essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try >> to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very >> much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we >> would open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this >> is a practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok >> that we can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, >> with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential >> game changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to >> be setting in)... >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is *a tide* in the *affairs >> of men*. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... >> >> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... >> President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a >> regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced >> the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, >> and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards >> well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its >> interest... >> >> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real >> interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take >> our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which >> hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that >> counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no >> good... >> >> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains we >> can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks or >> advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face >> to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the >> appropriate response. >> >> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to >> the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for >> democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, >> the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd >> Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be >> changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately >> seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like >> that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has >> happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing >> hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support >> this proposal. >> >> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in >> global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, >> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden >> manner, >> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of the >> key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN >> or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of status >> quo,and that >> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all >> action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... >> >> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed >> meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, >> saying this is not at all what we bargained for) >> >> So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, >> or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still >> wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. >> Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral >> from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may >> not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would >> already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society >> support to have this kind of impact.... >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. >> We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea >> of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible >> processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will >> emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali >> and before then try to find out a little more. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> *From:* Deborah Brown >> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Dear all, >> >> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned >> that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us >> travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more >> sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the >> in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS >> agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the >> initiative at this point. >> >> The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) >> does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have >> expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" >> of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of >> course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours >> ;) >> >> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on >> communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more >> effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and >> head of ICANN. >> >> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is >> hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, >> I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm >> looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion >> around this important development. >> >> Best regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> >>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil >>> society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive >>> that the current IGF >>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way >>> understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". >>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are >>> working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues >>> intend to play key roles in the summit. >>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in >>> the summit >>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation >>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles >>> that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue >>> during the BB meeting in Bali. >>> >>> >>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection >>> processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to >>> sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>> >>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and >>> I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I >>> do not, here are my ideas: >>> >>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the >>> idea, and not the institutions >>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder >>> principle >>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals >>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope >>> the idea itself. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and >>>> ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - >>>> coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the >>>> presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a >>>> letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. >>>> >>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our >>>> agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several >>>> meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in >>>> the Summit??) >>>> >>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this >>>> with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society >>>> or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the >>>> government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the >>>> principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >>>> >>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I >>>> really need more inputs to see the big picture. >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. >>>>> Afonso >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>>> To: McTim >>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; >>>>> Rafik >>>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >>>>> will >>>>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>>> >>>>> Dear compa McT, >>>>> >>>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >>>>> view... >>>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel >>>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete >>>>> proposals to >>>>> finally move on. >>>>> >>>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >>>>> statement >>>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil >>>>> society >>>>> defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and >>>>> her >>>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of >>>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP >>>>> addressers >>>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped >>>>> by the >>>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that >>>>> proposal? :) >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for >>>>> yet >>>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called >>>>> IGF, >>>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement >>>>> that >>>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. >>>>> >>>>> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within >>>>> the >>>>> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the >>>>> ITU, >>>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of >>>>> governance >>>>> we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational >>>>> telecom >>>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >>>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar >>>>> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >>>>> disputes >>>>> as well. >>>>> >>>>> [] fraterno >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that >>>>> we >>>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>>> > >>>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> --c.a. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein < >>>>> gurstein at gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes >>>>> from >>>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int Fri Oct 11 11:46:51 2013 From: Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int (KWASNY Sophie) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:46:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Panelist needed for WS 335 Privacy: from regional regulations to global connections? In-Reply-To: <10BE947B-E89E-49DD-806D-5C97BE455418@ciroap.org> References: <10BE947B-E89E-49DD-806D-5C97BE455418@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <009140F0156579499DBFD29352345F1C38F619C1@V-Linguistix02.key.coe.int> Dear Jeremy, Dear IG caucus List members, Frederic Donck (ISOC) and myself (Council of Europe) as co-organisers of that Workshop would like to thank you for your efforts and let you know that all is set and in order, with a great panel ready to discuss (and argue ? ;) this important question: "Privacy: from regional regulations to global connections". This gives me a perfect occasion to invite all of you who will be present in Bali to attend the workshop on 24 October from 11 to 12.30 in Room 4 (Uluwatu 1) and for the others, to follow it and contribute remotely. Have a great week-end ! Sophie Sophie Kwasny Data Protection Unit Human Rights and Rule of Law (DG I) CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE - COUNCIL OF EUROPE www.coe.int/dataprotection From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: vendredi 11 octobre 2013 16:18 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Panelist needed for WS 335 Privacy: from regional regulations to global connections? I've been asked by a colleague to fill a slot in this workshop (not my workshop) on privacy: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=335 If anyone is capable and interested, please let me know off-list. Thanks. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 12:21:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:51:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52582596.305@itforchange.net> Hi Rafik On Friday 11 October 2013 09:00 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > sorry I was not asking about the draft letter but more what I > understood from your proposal is that we move quickly and spend time > shorter than usual even if there are concerns . Firstly, we can take the usual time for seeking consensus. Just not postpone to another time... Secondly, I have not clearly heard, or any rate understood, the concerns. Lets be clear what we are doing at present - Just welcoming an initiative that by all means looks like a serious outcome oriented or at least outcome seeking one, and saying that we want to be there right away driving it along with others.... What is wrong with it. The potential benefit is clear - we try to get a bit tri - lateral about this initiative.... Any other time will be too late.... And as I said I dont see the downside.... > I want to be sure if I got you message correctly. > I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am still not > convinced and I want to highlight that any action we take, will have > impact soon or later and can backfire. I don't think that you would > disagree with more strategical approach. You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any political act carries risk. Regards, parminder > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2013/10/11 parminder > > > It is here > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 > > Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus > document of demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and > strong letter, of a few sentences, that Brazilian President or > some top guy would actually read, and not get confusing messages. > I am not saying we should not say whatever we definitively want to > say - but be clear and short, that is all. > > parminder > > > On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing >> here? can you please clarify? >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2013/10/11 parminder > > >> >> >> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is >> strategically of essense, some of us would keep working on a >> posible text over today and try to present something to IGC >> and BB by the end of the day.... We do very much hope IGC and >> BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would >> open it to organisations and people who want to sign it >> (sorry, this is a practice I normally do not like so much, >> but I dont think it is ok that we can produce a statement to >> critique a UN process is just no time, with all kind of >> ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential >> game changer - initiative from a developing country, a >> paralysis seems to be setting in)... >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >>> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a tide/ >>> in the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the flood, leads on >>> to fortune"... >>> >>> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize >>> it.... President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps >>> been, somewhat a regular kind of offer. She seized it with >>> both her hands, even announced the like month etc.. That is >>> what gave it such a sudden high prominence, and people are >>> celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards >>> well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to >>> further its interest... >>> >>> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some >>> interests - real interests of real people, who are most >>> marginalised, and we have to take our own responsibility >>> seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which hurts >>> these interests. If there are real differences of views, >>> well, that counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch >>> attitude would do us no good... >>> >>> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and >>> what gains we can make... And others must also contribute >>> what they think are risks or advantages.... merely saying we >>> are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face to face and >>> all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the >>> appropriate response. >>> >>> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to >>> cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the >>> new proposal for democratising global IG that Rousseff said >>> Brazil will soon present - BTW, the day of the annual >>> discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, >>> but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what >>> needs to be changed about the global governance of the >>> Internet. Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and >>> even declares a possible timeline, just like that, >>> off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that >>> has happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. >>> There is nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly >>> become complicit to if they support this proposal. >>> >>> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >>> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to >>> change in global governance of the Internet should take >>> place with some urgency, >>> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a >>> hidden manner, >>> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes >>> from one of the key developing nations - the main votaries >>> of a 'real change' - and ICANN or the technical community - >>> seen as the main symbol and defender of status quo,and that >>> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle >>> of all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... >>> >>> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about >>> the proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as >>> publicly withdraw our support, saying this is not at all >>> what we bargained for) >>> >>> So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a >>> statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the >>> statement, when people are still wondering what kind of >>> initiative it really is, and with what implications. Throw >>> in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat >>> trilateral from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - >>> ICANN tech community) We may not succeed, but we must try. >>> .... In a few weeks, the initiative would already be too >>> solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society >>> support to have this kind of impact.... >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more >>>> information emerges. We can draft a letter which is more >>>> meaningful when we have a better idea of the scope, >>>> objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and >>>> possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely >>>> more information will emerge in the next week or so, >>>> therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then >>>> try to find out a little more. >>>> Ian Peter >>>> *From:* Deborah Brown >>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >>>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >>>> Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet >>>> governance in 2014 >>>> Dear all, >>>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a >>>> bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize >>>> a letter before many of us travel and are otherwise >>>> overstretched. I wonder if it might make more sense to >>>> continue this discussion online and take advantage of the >>>> in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to >>>> develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we >>>> know so little about the initiative at this point. >>>> The draft text (available here: >>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to >>>> capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have >>>> expressed. I also have concerns about providing our >>>> "strongest endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when >>>> that process is not yet complete. Of course the text of the >>>> letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) >>>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a >>>> follow on communication with more concrete proposals. I >>>> wonder if it might be more effective to streamline our >>>> communication to the Brazilian president and head of ICANN. >>>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while >>>> the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given >>>> the factors I mentioned above, I would support taking some >>>> extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm looking forward >>>> to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion >>>> around this important development. >>>> Best regards, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the >>>> civil society, it is support for an IDEA that >>>> "appears" more open and inclusive that the current IGF >>>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be >>>> in any way understood as "Civil Society lauds >>>> Dilma and ICANN's push". >>>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society >>>> that are working on, concerned about and/or >>>> interested in IG and Internet issues intend to >>>> play key roles in the summit. >>>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan >>>> to pursue in the summit >>>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder >>>> participation >>>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the >>>> diverse roles that CS can play and that some time >>>> in Bali will be dedicated to the issue during the >>>> BB meeting in Bali. >>>> >>>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing >>>> the MS Selection processes, and I do hope, personally >>>> that we can use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. >>>> A reminder of the WS is on >>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>>> >>>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be >>>> back online and I'm happy to contribute language if any >>>> text begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my >>>> ideas: >>>> >>>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, >>>> which is the idea, and not the institutions >>>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >>>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the >>>> Multistakeholder principle >>>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >>>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete >>>> engagement proposals >>>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to >>>> help us scope the idea itself. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> For the level of information I have (which is >>>> basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a >>>> Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or >>>> right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and >>>> before the presidential elections period), I don't >>>> feel comfortable about writing a letter >>>> congratulating for something I dont really know >>>> what it is. >>>> >>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start >>>> working on our agenda online and, with a potential >>>> to be much richer, during our several meetings in >>>> Bali. (what do we want from all this besides >>>> participating in the Summit??) >>>> >>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to >>>> understand and discuss this with the Brazilian >>>> government and Brazilian colleagues from civil >>>> society or other sectors. And see what is the final >>>> draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring >>>> to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all >>>> the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >>>> >>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over >>>> cautious position, but I really need more inputs to >>>> see the big picture. >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>> To: McTim >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> ; michael >>>> gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik >>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; >>>> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >,; NCSG List >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] >>>> Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will >>>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>> >>>> Dear compa McT, >>>> >>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not >>>> change your logical view... >>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in >>>> all sectors who feel >>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil >>>> and its concrete proposals to >>>> finally move on. >>>> >>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the >>>> motivation -- Rousseff's statement >>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic >>>> principles most of civil society >>>> defends (which she has repeated several times >>>> in her radio program and her >>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a >>>> planetary framework of >>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from >>>> a meeting of IP addressers >>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you >>>> think Fadi just dropped by the >>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and >>>> entered to sell that proposal? :) >>>> >>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this >>>> is not a proposal for yet >>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN >>>> chatting space called IGF, >>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It >>>> is a major achievement that >>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this >>>> effort jointly with BR. >>>> >>>> All the more so because, as you know, there are >>>> strong sectors within the >>>> government who would love to bring the >>>> root-zone to the purview of the ITU, >>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the >>>> pluriparticipative model of governance >>>> we defend, and who are basically associated >>>> with the transnational telecom >>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall >>>> here, to defend those >>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging >>>> from the meeting with thar >>>> proposal was a major political milestone for >>>> her in those internal disputes >>>> as well. >>>> >>>> [] fraterno >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has >>>> accepted our invitation that we >>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>> > >>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. >>>> Afonso > >>>> wrote: >>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few >>>> times more... :) >>>> >> >>>> >> --c.a. >>>> >> >>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael >>>> gurstein >>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. >>>> I may be wrong but this >>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off >>>> to Fadi for getting this >>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the >>>> Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next >>>> year to discuss names and >>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is >>>> by-passing the quite >>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and >>>> the status quo which it >>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. >>>> (non) rules and regs. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video >>>> again several times that >>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the >>>> Montevideoans) that are >>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea >>>> of the Summit comes from >>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Senior Policy Analyst >>>> Access | accessnow.org >>>> rightscon.org >>>> >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 11 12:34:43 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 18:34:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52582596.305@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Parminder wrote: > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any > political act carries risk. Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the certainty of losing that opportunity. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 12:44:24 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:44:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: The current text on etherpad is fine for me. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is >> good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >> havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any >> political act carries risk. > > Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries > more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the > certainty of losing that opportunity. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 12:46:16 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:46:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] JC talking about Montevideo statement now Message-ID: http://kikaua.com/clients/arin/ -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Oct 11 13:07:41 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:37:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. My two paise, Anja On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is > > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I > > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any > > political act carries risk. > > Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries > more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the > certainty of losing that opportunity. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 13:18:38 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 22:48:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: <525832EE.2020404@itforchange.net> Anja I am repeating myself - but at this stage there is nothing to be done other than welcoming and supporting the initiative, as it is expressed till now, and extending (and seeking) partnership ... This doesnt take long to either agree to or not.... And any such letter would be received with delight by Brazilians and not any fatigue. I am not able to see adequate, or rather any, reason to delay this, and not opportunistically leverage the advantage of immediate and early response, when things are in a formative stage... parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 10:37 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short > succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best > Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and > apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed > letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it > with fatigue. > > Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point > is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten > days time will have more force. > > Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are > other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government > that we are interested in working with them on this and support this > idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly > and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. > > My two paise, > Anja > > > > > On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > Parminder > wrote: > > > You are just making a general statement that caution and > foresight is > > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I > > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any > > political act carries risk. > > Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries > more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the > certainty of losing that opportunity. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 11 13:26:57 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:26:57 +0900 Subject: more offlist Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: <3E2A994B-0F82-4D35-BE62-9B65F0F12443@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Anja, suspect you're right. Are you chatting with Carlos about the IGF program etc? If he is in contact with his President's advisors/aides then perhaps message of this kind could be delivered in a dialogue, as discussion points saying International civil society has points to make etc. Really depends on his access and his willingness. He's already messenger and that can be uncomfortable. Adam On Oct 12, 2013, at 2:07 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. > > Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. > > Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. > > My two paise, > Anja > > > > > On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is > > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I > > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any > > political act carries risk. > > Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries > more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the > certainty of losing that opportunity. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 11 13:28:41 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:28:41 +0900 Subject: more offlist Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <3E2A994B-0F82-4D35-BE62-9B65F0F12443@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <3E2A994B-0F82-4D35-BE62-9B65F0F12443@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: well, that wasn't offlist. Apologies to Carlos in particular. Never mind... Adam On Oct 12, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anja, suspect you're right. > > Are you chatting with Carlos about the IGF program etc? If he is in contact with his President's advisors/aides then perhaps message of this kind could be delivered in a dialogue, as discussion points saying International civil society has points to make etc. Really depends on his access and his willingness. He's already messenger and that can be uncomfortable. > > Adam > > > On Oct 12, 2013, at 2:07 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. >> >> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. >> >> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. >> >> My two paise, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is >>> good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >>> havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any >>> political act carries risk. >> >> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >> certainty of losing that opportunity. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Oct 11 13:29:21 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:29:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: Anja +1 We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics. I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. > > Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. > > Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. > > My two paise, > Anja > > > > > On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is > > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I > > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any > > political act carries risk. > > Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries > more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the > certainty of losing that opportunity. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 11 13:54:15 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:54:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> Agree with Anja too.. I think we need to excercise caution. I do think that once we know more about this event we should intervene strongly. At this point I think a general outcome statement from the Best Bits meeting (with support from the IGC if it can reach consensus) could praise this initiative, but make come cautionary points about it. We should also use the opportunity of talking with Brazilian colleagues and government people in Bali to get more insight into how they envision this event. I would not write another letter before the IGF. Anriette On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: > Anja +1 > > We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of > not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration > geopolitics. > > I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as > has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far > better resourced actors that ultimately will result in a very > different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where > rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short >> succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the >> Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of >> excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a >> third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will >> simply receive it with fatigue. >> >> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The >> point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter >> in ten days time will have more force. >> >> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are >> other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government >> that we are interested in working with them on this and support this >> idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly >> and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. >> >> My two paise, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: >> >> Parminder > > wrote: >> >> > You are just making a general statement that caution and >> foresight is >> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >> > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any >> > political act carries risk. >> >> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >> certainty of losing that opportunity. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 14:02:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:02:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: <04ab01cec6ac$06995630$13cc0290$@gmail.com> Robert, >From my observation and experience with CGI etc. the recent history in Brazil of inclusion of civil society in matters having to do with Internet Governance is among the best anywhere. And yes, for sure we need to be cautious down the road to ensure that the rights of citizens/users on the Internet are respected. Ensuring that the rule of law is operative in the online world as much as in the off-line would go a very long way to achieving that end and an endless talk-fest as per the IGF seems very unlikely to achieve very much in that direction. However, the bold move from the President of Brazil, particularly since they and she are specifically agrieved parties to the current lawlessness gives some hope that their initiative will be in the desired direction. I think based on your arguments you should be a strong supporter of the proposed letter if only to ensure as much as is possible a role for CS in the discussions which will I'm sure be starting almost immediately. Best, Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:29 AM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Anja +1 We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics. I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. My two paise, Anja On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: Parminder wrote: > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any > political act carries risk. Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the certainty of losing that opportunity. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 14:25:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:55:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> Message-ID: <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:24 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Agree with Anja too.. I think we need to excercise caution. I do think > that once we know more about this event we should intervene strongly. > > At this point I think a general outcome statement from the Best Bits > meeting (with support from the IGC if it can reach consensus) could > praise this initiative, but make come cautionary points about it. We > should also use the opportunity of talking with Brazilian colleagues > and government people in Bali to get more insight into how they > envision this event. > > I would not write another letter before the IGF. By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that... parminder > > Anriette > > On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: >> Anja +1 >> >> We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of >> not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration >> geopolitics. >> >> I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , >> as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far >> better resourced actors that ultimately will result in a very >> different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where >> rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short >>> succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the >>> Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of >>> excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a >>> third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she >>> will simply receive it with fatigue. >>> >>> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The >>> point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed >>> letter in ten days time will have more force. >>> >>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are >>> other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government >>> that we are interested in working with them on this and support >>> this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more >>> directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through >>> the IGF. >>> >>> My two paise, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow >> > wrote: >>> >>> Parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>> > You are just making a general statement that caution and >>> foresight is >>> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >>> > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any >>> > political act carries risk. >>> >>> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >>> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >>> certainty of losing that opportunity. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 11 14:25:15 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:25:15 -0300 Subject: more offlist Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <3E2A994B-0F82-4D35-BE62-9B65F0F12443@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <3E2A994B-0F82-4D35-BE62-9B65F0F12443@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5258428B.5020608@cafonso.ca> No problemo, Adam :) --c.a. On 10/11/2013 02:26 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anja, suspect you're right. > > Are you chatting with Carlos about the IGF program etc? If he is in contact with his President's advisors/aides then perhaps message of this kind could be delivered in a dialogue, as discussion points saying International civil society has points to make etc. Really depends on his access and his willingness. He's already messenger and that can be uncomfortable. > > Adam > > > On Oct 12, 2013, at 2:07 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. >> >> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. >> >> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. >> >> My two paise, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is >>> good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >>> havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any >>> political act carries risk. >> >> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >> certainty of losing that opportunity. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 11 14:37:23 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:37:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131011125915.283b4214@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <5256E8B5.4050005@cafonso.ca> <20131011125915.283b4214@quill> Message-ID: <52584563.7020504@cafonso.ca> Not sure I will be able to do it in person given that in a few days I will be off to Bali. But if we do have a letter to her, we can make sure it gets to her. --c.a. On 10/11/2013 07:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> If the adressees are Dilma and Fadi, I can try to deliver to the >> Presidenta as I see no reason I cannot do it again :) > > That sounds absolutely great!!! > > Do you see any specific opportunity for trying that kind of thing > again during the course of next week (if possible preferably during the > first half)? > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 11 14:52:01 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:52:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> Valid point Parminder. Anriette On 11/10/2013 20:25, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 11 October 2013 11:24 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Agree with Anja too.. I think we need to excercise caution. I do >> think that once we know more about this event we should intervene >> strongly. >> >> At this point I think a general outcome statement from the Best Bits >> meeting (with support from the IGC if it can reach consensus) could >> praise this initiative, but make come cautionary points about it. We >> should also use the opportunity of talking with Brazilian colleagues >> and government people in Bali to get more insight into how they >> envision this event. >> >> I would not write another letter before the IGF. > > By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a > Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of > global civil society... And it wont change after that... > > parminder >> >> Anriette >> >> On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: >>> Anja +1 >>> >>> We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences >>> of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration >>> geopolitics. >>> >>> I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , >>> as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far >>> better resourced actors that ultimately will result in a very >>> different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where >>> rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... >>> >>> regards >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> -- >>> R. Guerra >>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>> >>> On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> >>>> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short >>>> succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the >>>> Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of >>>> excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a >>>> third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she >>>> will simply receive it with fatigue. >>>> >>>> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The >>>> point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed >>>> letter in ten days time will have more force. >>>> >>>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are >>>> other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government >>>> that we are interested in working with them on this and support >>>> this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more >>>> directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this >>>> through the IGF. >>>> >>>> My two paise, >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Parminder >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> > You are just making a general statement that caution and >>>> foresight is >>>> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >>>> > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any >>>> > political act carries risk. >>>> >>>> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >>>> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >>>> certainty of losing that opportunity. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Oct 11 15:31:09 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:31:09 +1100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> Message-ID: <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter version. Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the Brazilian government We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested parties. We look forward to learning more details of the event and to contributing to this with specific and concrete proposals. -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM To: IGC Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting has taken place: --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the government of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet governance in 2014 Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the Brazilian government We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet governance. We look forward to learning more details of the event as they emerge and to contributing to this with specific and concrete proposals which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming meetings during the Bali IGF. The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world offer their support to your initiative and will look forward to partnering in its various processes as they evolve. We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and arrangements that develop from it. Yours sincerely --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and one that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has come out of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC members have already participated, I feel that it may be best to take this as the starting point for the IGC consensus process. The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that up also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to endorse. [with IGC coordinator hat on] Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask for this change. In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high priority and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I have no idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus process deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at least every twelve hours. The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such a letter to be voiced, is also still open. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Oct 11 15:35:26 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:35:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill>,<9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Quick edit of last paragraph. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter version. Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the Brazilian government We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM To: IGC Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting has taken place: --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the government of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet governance in 2014 Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the Brazilian government We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet governance. We look forward to learning more details of the event as they emerge and to contributing to this with specific and concrete proposals which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming meetings during the Bali IGF. The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world offer their support to your initiative and will look forward to partnering in its various processes as they evolve. We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and arrangements that develop from it. Yours sincerely --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and one that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has come out of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC members have already participated, I feel that it may be best to take this as the starting point for the IGC consensus process. The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that up also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to endorse. [with IGC coordinator hat on] Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask for this change. In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high priority and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I have no idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus process deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at least every twelve hours. The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such a letter to be voiced, is also still open. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 15:35:50 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:35:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> Message-ID: <002001cec6b9$1e29fa40$5a7deec0$@gmail.com> Probably also worth mentioning… the fact that there are 3 items in close succession worthy of positive comment from our perspective (after months of little but uniformly negative developments) is something to be celebrated rather than resisted… especially since it would be appear as per CA's note that our comments are being brought to the attention of the most appropriate and highest authorities. What's not to like :) M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 11:52 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Valid point Parminder. Anriette On 11/10/2013 20:25, parminder wrote: On Friday 11 October 2013 11:24 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Agree with Anja too.. I think we need to excercise caution. I do think that once we know more about this event we should intervene strongly. At this point I think a general outcome statement from the Best Bits meeting (with support from the IGC if it can reach consensus) could praise this initiative, but make come cautionary points about it. We should also use the opportunity of talking with Brazilian colleagues and government people in Bali to get more insight into how they envision this event. I would not write another letter before the IGF. By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that... parminder Anriette On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: Anja +1 We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics. I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. My two paise, Anja On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: Parminder wrote: > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any > political act carries risk. Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the certainty of losing that opportunity. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 11 15:52:16 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 21:52:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill>,<9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter version which I think is very good. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, and to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and other's advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter I also believe we need to be consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was made by India and Brazil there was an outcry in the IGF community and all three governments were urged to discuss these proposals at the IGF before tabling them at the GA? Do we no longer think this is important? Anriette On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Quick edit of last paragraph. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter > version. > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of > the Brazilian government > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and > to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest > and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to contributing > to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting has > taken place: > > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ > Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the government > of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of > the Brazilian government > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and > to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest > and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil > society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from > agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the > planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested > parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the > broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including > support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit > of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. > > We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition > and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many > important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this > context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil > society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, > and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the > national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move > these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet > governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing > concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet > governance. > > We look forward to learning more details of the event as > they emerge and to contributing to this with specific and concrete > proposals which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming > meetings during the Bali IGF. > > The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world offer > their support to your initiative and will look forward to partnering in > its various processes as they evolve. > > We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the > global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and > arrangements that develop from it. > > Yours sincerely > --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and one > that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has come out > of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC members have > already participated, I feel that it may be best to take this as the > starting point for the IGC consensus process. > > The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least > rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some > some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that > up also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to > endorse. > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a > specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask > for this change. > > In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most > effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high priority > and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I have no > idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus process > deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly > time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like > to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of > the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at > least every twelve hours. > > The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such a > letter to be voiced, is also still open. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Oct 11 15:59:39 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:59:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill>,<9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<525856F0.8020209@apc.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284818@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Anriette, As all parties know it will be discussed at IGF, personally I do not think it especially important to state that. But I have no problem with your edit. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:52 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter version which I think is very good. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, and to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and other's advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter I also believe we need to be consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was made by India and Brazil there was an outcry in the IGF community and all three governments were urged to discuss these proposals at the IGF before tabling them at the GA? Do we no longer think this is important? Anriette On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Quick edit of last paragraph. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter > version. > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of > the Brazilian government > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and > to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest > and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to contributing > to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting has > taken place: > > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ > Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the government > of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of > the Brazilian government > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and > to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest > and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil > society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from > agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the > planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested > parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the > broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including > support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit > of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. > > We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition > and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many > important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this > context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil > society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, > and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the > national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move > these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet > governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing > concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet > governance. > > We look forward to learning more details of the event as > they emerge and to contributing to this with specific and concrete > proposals which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming > meetings during the Bali IGF. > > The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world offer > their support to your initiative and will look forward to partnering in > its various processes as they evolve. > > We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the > global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and > arrangements that develop from it. > > Yours sincerely > --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and one > that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has come out > of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC members have > already participated, I feel that it may be best to take this as the > starting point for the IGC consensus process. > > The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least > rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some > some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that > up also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to > endorse. > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a > specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask > for this change. > > In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most > effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high priority > and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I have no > idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus process > deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly > time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like > to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of > the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at > least every twelve hours. > > The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such a > letter to be voiced, is also still open. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 16:36:22 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:36:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> Message-ID: I'm fine with AE's edit, but would like to switch the order in the first para to become: We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) along with the government of Brazil, to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter > version which I think is very good. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, and to contributing > to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and > other's advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter > I also believe we need to be consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was > made by India and Brazil there was an outcry in the IGF community and > all three governments were urged to discuss these proposals at the IGF > before tabling them at the GA? > > Do we no longer think this is important? > > Anriette > > > On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Quick edit of last paragraph. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter >> version. >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of >> the Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and >> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest >> and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to contributing >> to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Norbert Bollow >> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting has >> taken place: >> >> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the government >> of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of >> the Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and >> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest >> and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil >> society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from >> agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the >> planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested >> parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the >> broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including >> support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit >> of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. >> >> We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition >> and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many >> important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this >> context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil >> society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, >> and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the >> national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move >> these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet >> governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing >> concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet >> governance. >> >> We look forward to learning more details of the event as >> they emerge and to contributing to this with specific and concrete >> proposals which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming >> meetings during the Bali IGF. >> >> The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world offer >> their support to your initiative and will look forward to partnering in >> its various processes as they evolve. >> >> We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the >> global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and >> arrangements that develop from it. >> >> Yours sincerely >> --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and one >> that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has come out >> of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC members have >> already participated, I feel that it may be best to take this as the >> starting point for the IGC consensus process. >> >> The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least >> rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some >> some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that >> up also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to >> endorse. >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a >> specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask >> for this change. >> >> In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most >> effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high priority >> and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I have no >> idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus process >> deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly >> time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like >> to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of >> the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at >> least every twelve hours. >> >> The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such a >> letter to be voiced, is also still open. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 17:31:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:31:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> Message-ID: <003901cec6c9$508c6f30$f1a54d90$@gmail.com> And your rationale for this is... (it seems rather counter to the direction of most press reports at least... M 3 results (0.28 seconds) Search Results 1. https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSM8tYm46Qnkl9T3AgvGIvD yQYaLwYkFEPGCr4g7GTQWgizpwpbQfeG2J_kg1SljXk0JRA1Wh4 Brazil to host global internet summit in ongoing fight against NSA ... RT (blog)-22 hours ago President Dilma Rousseff, after consulting with Fadi Chehade, chief ... (ICANN), announced via Twitter a conference would be held in April. 2. Edward Snowden Fallout: Brazil to Host Global Anti-NSA Summit ... 3. IBTimes.co.uk-10 hours ago 4. Brazil to host internet governance summit 5. News24-Oct 10, 2013 6. all 22 news sources > 7. Brazil to host web governance confab Press TV-12 hours ago Brazil plans to host an international conference on internet governance ... "We have decided that Brazil will host in April 2014 an international ... Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff announced Wednesday through a ... of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the report adds. 8. 9. Brazil To Host International Meeting On Internet Oversight Bernama-Oct 9, 2013 ... to host an international internet governance meeting in April next year with ... The announcement came after Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff met ... of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), ... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:36 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen Cc: Ian Peter; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process I'm fine with AE's edit, but would like to switch the order in the first para to become: We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) along with the government of Brazil, to "discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance" and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen < anriette at apc.org> wrote: > I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter > version which I think is very good. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to > discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, and to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and > other's advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter I also believe > we need to be consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was made by > India and Brazil there was an outcry in the IGF community and all > three governments were urged to discuss these proposals at the IGF > before tabling them at the GA? > > Do we no longer think this is important? > > Anriette > > > On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Quick edit of last paragraph. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter >> [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus >> process >> >> Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter >> version. >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >> Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to "discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance" >> and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public >> interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to >> contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Norbert Bollow >> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting >> has taken place: >> >> --snip--------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the >> government of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet >> governance in 2014 >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >> Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to "discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance" >> and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public >> interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil >> society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from >> agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the >> planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested >> parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing >> the broadest base of shared benefits for the global community >> including support for economic and social development, and innovation >> in pursuit of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. >> >> We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition >> and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many >> important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this >> context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil >> society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, >> and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the >> national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to >> move these experiences forward into the emerging area of global >> Internet governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, >> proposing concrete measures to democratise and internationalise >> global Internet governance. >> >> We look forward to learning more details of the event as they emerge >> and to contributing to this with specific and concrete proposals >> which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming meetings >> during the Bali IGF. >> >> The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world >> offer their support to your initiative and will look forward to >> partnering in its various processes as they evolve. >> >> We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the >> global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms >> and arrangements that develop from it. >> >> Yours sincerely >> --snap--------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and >> one that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has >> come out of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC >> members have already participated, I feel that it may be best to take >> this as the starting point for the IGC consensus process. >> >> The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at >> least rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on >> some some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then >> put that up also inviting civil society organizations as well as >> individuals to endorse. >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with >> a specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you >> ask for this change. >> >> In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most >> effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high >> priority and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. >> I have no idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus >> process deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly >> time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like >> to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details >> of the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at >> least every twelve hours. >> >> The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to >> such a letter to be voiced, is also still open. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 > 726 1692 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1738 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 17:34:50 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:34:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284818@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill>,<9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284818@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <004a01cec6c9$bf31ef50$3d95cdf0$@gmail.com> I agree with Lee but am okay with this version. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:00 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; Ian Peter; Norbert Bollow Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process Anriette, As all parties know it will be discussed at IGF, personally I do not think it especially important to state that. But I have no problem with your edit. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen [anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:52 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter version which I think is very good. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, and to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and other's advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter I also believe we need to be consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was made by India and Brazil there was an outcry in the IGF community and all three governments were urged to discuss these proposals at the IGF before tabling them at the GA? Do we no longer think this is important? Anriette On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Quick edit of last paragraph. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter > [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus > process > > Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter > version. > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the > Brazilian government > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to "discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance" and > to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future of the development of the Internet in the global public > interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to > contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting > has taken place: > > --snip---------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the > government of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet > governance in 2014 > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the > Brazilian government > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to "discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance" and > to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future of the development of the Internet in the global public > interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil > society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from > agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the > planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested > parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the > broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including > support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit > of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. > > We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition > and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many > important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this > context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil > society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, > and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the > national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move > these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet > governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing > concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet > governance. > > We look forward to learning more details of the event as they emerge > and to contributing to this with specific and concrete proposals which > will be the subject of discussion during upcoming meetings during the > Bali IGF. > > The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world > offer their support to your initiative and will look forward to > partnering in its various processes as they evolve. > > We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the > global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and > arrangements that develop from it. > > Yours sincerely > --snap---------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and > one that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has > come out of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC > members have already participated, I feel that it may be best to take > this as the starting point for the IGC consensus process. > > The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least > rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some some > modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that up > also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to > endorse. > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a > specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask > for this change. > > In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most > effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high > priority and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I > have no idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus > process deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly > time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like > to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of > the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at > least every twelve hours. > > The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such > a letter to be voiced, is also still open. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Oct 11 19:20:31 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:20:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> Message-ID: At 22:36 11/10/2013, McTim wrote: >for the recently announced initiative of the Internet Corporation >for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) along with the government of Brazil, -1. It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by Fadi and accepted by Dilma. The summit may be acceptable by a broad part of the OECD and Europe if this is NOT an ICANN initiative. It will be disregarded or even OPPOSED by the Dubai signatorees if it is not a Brazilian initiative. If it is opposed by the Dubai signatorees it will be a Brazilian defeat. This summit is only a positive step if it is supported by the UN General Secretary in coordination with the IGF. Is this what you want? jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 11 19:23:54 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:23:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 22:36 11/10/2013, McTim wrote: >> >> for the recently announced initiative of the Internet Corporation for >> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) along with the government of Brazil, > > > -1. > > It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by Fadi and > accepted by Dilma. > The summit may be acceptable by a broad part of the OECD and Europe if this > is NOT an ICANN initiative. > It will be disregarded or even OPPOSED by the Dubai signatorees if it is not > a Brazilian initiative. > If it is opposed by the Dubai signatorees it will be a Brazilian defeat. > > This summit is only a positive step if it is supported by the UN General > Secretary in coordination with the IGF. > Is this what you want? What I want is to speak the truth. As you yourself said above: > "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by Fadi and > accepted by Dilma." -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Oct 11 19:32:49 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:32:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital Society [was Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014] In-Reply-To: <000c01cec602$c79d4490$56d7cdb0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <000c01cec602$c79d4490$56d7cdb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 11 23:46:40 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:16:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <004a01cec6c9$bf31ef50$3d95cdf0$@gmail.com> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill>,<9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284818@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <004a01cec6c9$bf31ef50$3d95cdf0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5258C620.5000509@itforchange.net> Shorter versions are fine But need a line to put the stake in the ground -- and say that civil society offers to fully participate in the process, which should be open and inclusive. And no loss in highlighting Brazil's exemplary record in terms of real partnerships with civil society on many key issues at global as well as domestic level (which is fully a fact). Helps give an indication as to what kind of structural embeddedness into the proposed initiative civil society seeks, and a word or two of genuine appreciative words would possibly goad them to, in the best case scenario, actually acknowledge our support and even do something concrete to include us as an important actor. I am sure we all agree with this objective.... and if we do, this is the tactical way to try and achieve it. I will suggest text right away... parminder On Saturday 12 October 2013 03:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I agree with Lee but am okay with this version. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:00 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; Ian Peter; Norbert > Bollow > Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > Anriette, > > As all parties know it will be discussed at IGF, personally I do not think > it especially important to state that. But I have no problem with your > edit. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen > [anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:52 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter > version which I think is very good. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to > discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, and > to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and other's > advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter I also believe we need to be > consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was made by India and Brazil there > was an outcry in the IGF community and all three governments were urged to > discuss these proposals at the IGF before tabling them at the GA? > > Do we no longer think this is important? > > Anriette > > > On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Quick edit of last paragraph. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter >> [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus >> process >> >> Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter >> version. >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >> Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to "discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance" and >> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public >> interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to >> contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Norbert Bollow >> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting >> has taken place: >> >> --snip---------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the >> government of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet >> governance in 2014 >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >> Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to "discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance" and >> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public >> interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil >> society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from >> agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the >> planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested >> parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the >> broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including >> support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit >> of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. >> >> We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition >> and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many >> important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this >> context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil >> society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, >> and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the >> national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move >> these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet >> governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing >> concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet >> governance. >> >> We look forward to learning more details of the event as they emerge >> and to contributing to this with specific and concrete proposals which >> will be the subject of discussion during upcoming meetings during the >> Bali IGF. >> >> The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world >> offer their support to your initiative and will look forward to >> partnering in its various processes as they evolve. >> >> We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the >> global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and >> arrangements that develop from it. >> >> Yours sincerely >> --snap---------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> >> I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and >> one that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has >> come out of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC >> members have already participated, I feel that it may be best to take >> this as the starting point for the IGC consensus process. >> >> The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least >> rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some some >> modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that up >> also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to >> endorse. >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a >> specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask >> for this change. >> >> In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most >> effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high >> priority and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I >> have no idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus >> process deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly >> time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like >> to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of >> the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at >> least every twelve hours. >> >> The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such >> a letter to be voiced, is also still open. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 12 00:10:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:40:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <5258C620.5000509@itforchange.net> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill>,<9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284818@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <004a01cec6c9$bf31ef50$3d95cdf0$@gmail.com> <5258C620.5000509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5258CBC5.9070203@itforchange.net> Add a sentence just before the line to the following effect "Civil society offers to fully participate in the initiative as an equal partner, various process of which should be open and inclusive, Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with it on this initiative. " Whereby the statement would look like as follows: (begins) Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the Brazilian government. We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. Civil society offers to fully participate in the initiative as an equal partner, various process of which should be open and inclusive, Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with Brazil on this initiative. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. (ends) On Saturday 12 October 2013 09:16 AM, parminder wrote: > Shorter versions are fine > > But need a line to put the stake in the ground -- and say that civil > society offers to fully participate in the process, which should be > open and inclusive. And no loss in highlighting Brazil's exemplary > record in terms of real partnerships with civil society on many key > issues at global as well as domestic level (which is fully a fact). > Helps give an indication as to what kind of structural embeddedness > into the proposed initiative civil society seeks, and a word or two of > genuine appreciative words would possibly goad them to, in the best > case scenario, actually acknowledge our support and even do something > concrete to include us as an important actor. I am sure we all agree > with this objective.... and if we do, this is the tactical way to try > and achieve it. > > I will suggest text right away... > > parminder > > > On Saturday 12 October 2013 03:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I agree with Lee but am okay with this version. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight >> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1:00 PM >> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; Ian Peter; Norbert >> Bollow >> Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> Anriette, >> >> As all parties know it will be discussed at IGF, personally I do not think >> it especially important to state that. But I have no problem with your >> edit. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Anriette Esterhuysen >> [anriette at apc.org] >> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:52 PM >> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter; Norbert Bollow >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter >> version which I think is very good. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to >> discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, and >> to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >> >> I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and other's >> advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter I also believe we need to be >> consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was made by India and Brazil there >> was an outcry in the IGF community and all three governments were urged to >> discuss these proposals at the IGF before tabling them at the GA? >> >> Do we no longer think this is important? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> Quick edit of last paragraph. >>> >>> Lee >>> ________________________________________ >>> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter >>> [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM >>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >>> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus >>> process >>> >>> Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter >>> version. >>> >>> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >>> Brazilian government >>> >>> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >>> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >>> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >>> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>> (ICANN), to "discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance" and >>> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >>> information societies. >>> >>> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >>> future of the development of the Internet in the global public >>> interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >>> >>> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to >>> contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Norbert Bollow >>> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM >>> To: IGC >>> Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >>> >>> Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting >>> has taken place: >>> >>> --snip---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the >>> government of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet >>> governance in 2014 >>> >>> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >>> Brazilian government >>> >>> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >>> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >>> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >>> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>> (ICANN), to "discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance" and >>> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >>> information societies. >>> >>> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >>> future of the development of the Internet in the global public >>> interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >>> >>> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil >>> society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from >>> agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the >>> planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested >>> parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the >>> broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including >>> support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit >>> of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. >>> >>> We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition >>> and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many >>> important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this >>> context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil >>> society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, >>> and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the >>> national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move >>> these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet >>> governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing >>> concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet >>> governance. >>> >>> We look forward to learning more details of the event as they emerge >>> and to contributing to this with specific and concrete proposals which >>> will be the subject of discussion during upcoming meetings during the >>> Bali IGF. >>> >>> The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world >>> offer their support to your initiative and will look forward to >>> partnering in its various processes as they evolve. >>> >>> We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the >>> global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and >>> arrangements that develop from it. >>> >>> Yours sincerely >>> --snap---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- >>> >>> I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and >>> one that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has >>> come out of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC >>> members have already participated, I feel that it may be best to take >>> this as the starting point for the IGC consensus process. >>> >>> The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least >>> rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some some >>> modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that up >>> also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to >>> endorse. >>> >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a >>> specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask >>> for this change. >>> >>> In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most >>> effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high >>> priority and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I >>> have no idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus >>> process deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly >>> time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like >>> to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of >>> the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at >>> least every twelve hours. >>> >>> The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such >>> a letter to be voiced, is also still open. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 12 00:33:46 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 10:03:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] For China, the internet is the new arena of warfare Message-ID: <5258D12A.20104@itforchange.net> Interesting news item here, that China has more internet monitors than active duty soldiers: http://mashable.com/2013/10/08/china-internet-monitors/ Indicates the new major axis of power and control, more than even the ability to exercise physical coercive power. Earlier the state was defined by its monopoly control over exercising of (legitimate) coercive power.... Maybe, now increasingly it would be more about the extent of informational power (legitimate or not). Such structural changes to the state-citizen relationship needs better understanding and 'structural' remedial measures - not just a protest against a bad law here and excessive action there. Going to the global level, US understood it well when they said they seek full "information dominance" and actually said, something to the effect that, that ability of being a super power in the new age greatly depends on an entity's power to use and break cryptographic tools... parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 01:15:50 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 14:15:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52582596.305@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello, > Firstly, we can take the usual time for seeking consensus. Just not > postpone to another time... Secondly, I have not clearly heard, or any rate > understood, the concerns. > > well I think that some people like Anriette , Anja , already expressed scepticism and asked at least to have the discuss in Bali and so waiting before sending the letter . I also didn't get till now what is the concrete outcome of sending the letter Lets be clear what we are doing at present - Just welcoming an initiative > that by all means looks like a serious outcome oriented or at least outcome > seeking one, and saying that we want to be there right away driving it > along with others.... What is wrong with it. The potential benefit is clear > - we try to get a bit tri - lateral about this initiative.... Any other > time will be too late.... And as I said I dont see the downside.... > for me it seems more interpretation or wishes of we may want to happen instead of having clear proofs or indications or benefits. and honestly I don't buy those arguments that we should hurry and don't miss the opportunity .any action we will take we have to bare the consequence later. > > I want to be sure if I got you message correctly. > I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am still not > convinced and I want to highlight that any action we take, will have impact > soon or later and can backfire. I don't think that you would disagree > with more strategical approach. > > > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is good > - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I havent been > told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any political act carries > risk. > > I saw people talking about being opportunistic and pragmatic,well I will take the cynical standpoint and remind that we are dealing with politicians(even for the ICANN CEO), they will of course welcome any letter support and like it. but what what will happen if we found the initiative is going in totally different direction? are we going to send another letter? do you really think they will care about it? probably no and maybe they will keep referring to the first letter because it support them and their narrative. why not investigating first and getting more details about what they have in mind before hurrying? should we jump there because one public statement?how can we make strategical decision with such few details? idem for people talking about benefit and opportunity to be part of the initiative but didn't give any clarification how that will happen. kind of shot first and then wait and see? anyway, I expressed my concern about sending letter to support initiative yet to be defined, that we don't have so much details about and without consensus on strategy that we have follow. Best, Rafik Regards, parminder > > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2013/10/11 parminder > >> It is here >> >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 >> >> Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus document of >> demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and strong letter, of a few >> sentences, that Brazilian President or some top guy would actually read, >> and not get confusing messages. I am not saying we should not say whatever >> we definitively want to say - but be clear and short, that is all. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing here? can >> you please clarify? >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2013/10/11 parminder >> >>> >>> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of >>> essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try >>> to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very >>> much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we >>> would open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this >>> is a practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok >>> that we can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, >>> with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential >>> game changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to >>> be setting in)... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is *a tide* in the *affairs >>> of men*. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... >>> >>> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... >>> President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a >>> regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced >>> the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, >>> and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards >>> well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its >>> interest... >>> >>> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real >>> interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take >>> our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which >>> hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that >>> counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no >>> good... >>> >>> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains >>> we can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks >>> or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do >>> face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the >>> appropriate response. >>> >>> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to >>> the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for >>> democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, >>> the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd >>> Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be >>> changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately >>> seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like >>> that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has >>> happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing >>> hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support >>> this proposal. >>> >>> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >>> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in >>> global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, >>> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden >>> manner, >>> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of >>> the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and >>> ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of >>> status quo,and that >>> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all >>> action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... >>> >>> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed >>> meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, >>> saying this is not at all what we bargained for) >>> >>> So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, >>> or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still >>> wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. >>> Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral >>> from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may >>> not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would >>> already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society >>> support to have this kind of impact.... >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. >>> We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea >>> of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible >>> processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will >>> emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali >>> and before then try to find out a little more. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> *From:* Deborah Brown >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >>> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned >>> that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us >>> travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more >>> sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the >>> in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS >>> agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the >>> initiative at this point. >>> >>> The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) >>> does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have >>> expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" >>> of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of >>> course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours >>> ;) >>> >>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on >>> communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more >>> effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and >>> head of ICANN. >>> >>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is >>> hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, >>> I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm >>> looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion >>> around this important development. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil >>>> society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive >>>> that the current IGF >>>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way >>>> understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". >>>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are >>>> working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues >>>> intend to play key roles in the summit. >>>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in >>>> the summit >>>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation >>>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles >>>> that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue >>>> during the BB meeting in Bali. >>>> >>>> >>>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection >>>> processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to >>>> sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on >>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>>> >>>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and >>>> I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I >>>> do not, here are my ideas: >>>> >>>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the >>>> idea, and not the institutions >>>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >>>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder >>>> principle >>>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >>>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals >>>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope >>>> the idea itself. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear people, >>>>> >>>>> For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and >>>>> ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - >>>>> coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the >>>>> presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a >>>>> letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. >>>>> >>>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our >>>>> agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several >>>>> meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in >>>>> the Summit??) >>>>> >>>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this >>>>> with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society >>>>> or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the >>>>> government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the >>>>> principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >>>>> >>>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I >>>>> really need more inputs to see the big picture. >>>>> >>>>> All the best >>>>> >>>>> joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> M >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. >>>>>> Afonso >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>>>> To: McTim >>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >>>>>> will >>>>>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear compa McT, >>>>>> >>>>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >>>>>> view... >>>>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel >>>>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete >>>>>> proposals to >>>>>> finally move on. >>>>>> >>>>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >>>>>> statement >>>>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil >>>>>> society >>>>>> defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program >>>>>> and her >>>>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of >>>>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP >>>>>> addressers >>>>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped >>>>>> by the >>>>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that >>>>>> proposal? :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for >>>>>> yet >>>>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called >>>>>> IGF, >>>>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement >>>>>> that >>>>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within >>>>>> the >>>>>> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of >>>>>> the ITU, >>>>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of >>>>>> governance >>>>>> we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational >>>>>> telecom >>>>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>>>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >>>>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar >>>>>> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >>>>>> disputes >>>>>> as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> [] fraterno >>>>>> >>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that >>>>>> we >>>>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> --c.a. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein < >>>>>> gurstein at gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting >>>>>> this >>>>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is >>>>>> going >>>>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which >>>>>> it >>>>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes >>>>>> from >>>>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> rightscon.org >>> >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Oct 12 00:35:57 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:35:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: On 12/10/2013, at 1:07 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. Also blogging about it. Use your own organisational or personal blog if you have one. If you don't, CircleID is a good choice. Otherwise you can actually blog at igcaucus.org itself, or igf-online.net or igfwatch.org. This (particularly CircleID) would have more reach than a letter anyway. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 12 01:53:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:23:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: <5258E3D7.5000603@itforchange.net> On Saturday 12 October 2013 10:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 12/10/2013, at 1:07 AM, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > >> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are >> other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government >> that we are interested in working with them on this and support this >> idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly >> and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. > > Also blogging about it. Use your own organisational or personal blog > if you have one. If you don't, CircleID is a good choice. Otherwise > you can actually blog at igcaucus.org itself, or > igf-online.net or igfwatch.org > . This (particularly CircleID) would have more > reach than a letter anyway. You think Rousseff reads CircleID? .... And even if she does, is it the same thing hearing agreements from some blogger somewhere, as a collective letter from prominent global civil society members... And also why dont we then always just individually blog our views on UN or ITU processes rather than bother everyone else about making statements and so no.... > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 12 02:27:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:27:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20131012082739.5ac8c2bb@quill> McTim wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: [..] > What I want is to speak the truth. > > As you yourself said above: > > > "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by Fadi > > and accepted by Dilma." Let's use language that credits both ICANN and Brazil for the initiative, and which mentions the government of Brazil in the more prominent first spot. Logically, saying “initiative of the government of Brazil and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)” is exactly as accurate as it is to put ICANN first, regardless of whose idea is was initially. I think that there are several good reasons for mentioning the government of Brazil first: * While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an event has come from ICANN, overall what has set this whole thing in motion was the Brazilian president's speech at the UN GA. * We're writing to the Brazilian government, which is the party that we as civil society need to communicate to in order to get included. There is no risk of anyone from the ICANN side doing anything to lock anyone out from this process. If civil society gets locked out, that will be an action of government bureaucrats who either have unhealthy connections to telecom business people with a pre-Internet mindset, or who have a pre-Internet telecom mindset themselves. We're seeking to prevent this by writing to someone with the power to prevent this from happening. It is IMO only polite to mention the addressee's role in the initiative first. If the letter is perceived as impolite or even offensive, which could easily happen if a non-government entity is mentioned more prominently or more respectfully than the governmental addressee of the letter, that's certainly make it less likely to achieve our goal. * Ultimately what counts in moving this plan forward is the power to attract state actors to a high-level event. This power is in the hands of the Brazilian government. From this perspective, I think that the media reports are 100% accurate who put it as an initiative of the Brazilian president that she has decided to undertake on the basis of having informed herself well (which she did by means of talking with someone of great and widely recognized specific expertise in Internet governance). Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 12 02:31:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:01:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> Rafik I did argue the potential benefits at length. At the same time, logic of cautious wait may also appears as sound. Finally, it is ones politics - and the extent of ones disenchantment with the status quo of power in global IG. As for those who are rather disenchanted, this is a major potential opening for a disruptive impact, something that has come after a long time, due to certain historical matching of political configurations - a prime element of which is the near universal global outrage following Snowden revelations. And such openings dont come everyday. To those, like for instance us, for whom there is major issue today about who has power and who hasnt in global IG, and is marginalised, it is difficult to let go such a prime opportunity without making the best attempt to leverage it. That is the simple fact here. To others, there may be less threat in status quo and more in the possible/ likely new configurations. Well, that is how it is then... But we should understand and acknowledge the politics that lies behind it.. It is not some simple technical difference of appreciating whether entrepreneurial political opportunism is better or conservative caution is more well-advised. Well, consensus-ism often does get used to safeguard the status quo. If anybody is in fact ready to convey the statement to Rousseff, our organisation's intention is still to go ahead with it. Hopefully IGC would sign it, but if not, those who want to send it can do so. Co-coordinators: Is is time to check rough consensus on the shorter version or not yet? parminder On Saturday 12 October 2013 10:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello, > > > > Firstly, we can take the usual time for seeking consensus. Just > not postpone to another time... Secondly, I have not clearly > heard, or any rate understood, the concerns. > > well I think that some people like Anriette , Anja , already > expressed scepticism and asked at least to have the discuss in Bali > and so waiting before sending the letter . I also didn't get till now > what is the concrete outcome of sending the letter > > Lets be clear what we are doing at present - Just welcoming an > initiative that by all means looks like a serious outcome oriented > or at least outcome seeking one, and saying that we want to be > there right away driving it along with others.... What is wrong > with it. The potential benefit is clear - we try to get a bit tri > - lateral about this initiative.... Any other time will be too > late.... And as I said I dont see the downside.... > > > for me it seems more interpretation or wishes of we may want to > happen instead of having clear proofs or indications or benefits. and > honestly I don't buy those arguments that we should hurry and don't > miss the opportunity .any action we will take we have to bare the > consequence later. > > >> I want to be sure if I got you message correctly. >> I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am still >> not convinced and I want to highlight that any action we take, >> will have impact soon or later and can backfire. I don't think >> that you would disagree with more strategical approach. > > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight > is good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here > I havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any > political act carries risk. > > > I saw people talking about being opportunistic and pragmatic,well I > will take the cynical standpoint and remind that we are dealing with > politicians(even for the ICANN CEO), they will of course welcome any > letter support and like it. but what what will happen if we found the > initiative is going in totally different direction? are we going to > send another letter? > do you really think they will care about it? probably no and maybe > they will keep referring to the first letter because it support them > and their narrative. > why not investigating first and getting more details about what they > have in mind before hurrying? > should we jump there because one public statement?how can we make > strategical decision with such few details? > idem for people talking about benefit and opportunity to be part of > the initiative but didn't give any clarification how that will happen. > kind of shot first and then wait and see? > > anyway, I expressed my concern about sending letter to support > initiative yet to be defined, that we don't have so much details about > and without consensus on strategy that we have follow. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Regards, parminder >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/10/11 parminder > > >> >> It is here >> >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 >> >> Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus >> document of demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and >> strong letter, of a few sentences, that Brazilian President >> or some top guy would actually read, and not get confusing >> messages. I am not saying we should not say whatever we >> definitively want to say - but be clear and short, that is all. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are >>> developing here? can you please clarify? >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2013/10/11 parminder >> > >>> >>> >>> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is >>> strategically of essense, some of us would keep working >>> on a posible text over today and try to present >>> something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do >>> very much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, >>> but it doesnt happen we would open it to organisations >>> and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a >>> practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont >>> think it is ok that we can produce a statement to >>> critique a UN process is just no time, with all kind of >>> ambiguous languages, and on such an important - >>> potential game changer - initiative from a developing >>> country, a paralysis seems to be setting in)... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is /a >>>> tide/ in the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at the >>>> flood, leads on to fortune"... >>>> >>>> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to >>>> seize it.... President Rousseff was made, what would >>>> have perhaps been, somewhat a regular kind of offer. >>>> She seized it with both her hands, even announced the >>>> like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden >>>> high prominence, and people are celebrating Rousseff, >>>> and somewhere, if it plays its cards well, Brazil have >>>> now got an edge.... which it can use to further its >>>> interest... >>>> >>>> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some >>>> interests - real interests of real people, who are most >>>> marginalised, and we have to take our own >>>> responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally >>>> paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are >>>> real differences of views, well, that counts.... But a >>>> permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no >>>> good... >>>> >>>> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run >>>> and what gains we can make... And others must also >>>> contribute what they think are risks or advantages.... >>>> merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do >>>> face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my >>>> own view, is not the appropriate response. >>>> >>>> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf >>>> tries to cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps in >>>> anticipation of the new proposal for democratising >>>> global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - >>>> BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG >>>> issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It >>>> proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be >>>> changed about the global governance of the Internet. >>>> Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and even >>>> declares a possible timeline, just like that, >>>> off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all >>>> that has happened, and that is all anyone knows has >>>> happened. There is nothing hidden that civil society >>>> may suddenly become complicit to if they support this >>>> proposal. >>>> >>>> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >>>> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs >>>> to change in global governance of the Internet should >>>> take place with some urgency, >>>> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and >>>> not a hidden manner, >>>> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative >>>> comes from one of the key developing nations - the main >>>> votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN or the >>>> technical community - seen as the main symbol and >>>> defender of status quo,and that >>>> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the >>>> middle of all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes >>>> place... >>>> >>>> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister >>>> about the proposed meeting surfaces at any later time >>>> we can as publicly withdraw our support, saying this >>>> is not at all what we bargained for) >>>> >>>> So either people here agree to the above, and we can >>>> write a statement, or they dont... This is the time to >>>> do the statement, when people are still wondering what >>>> kind of initiative it really is, and with what >>>> implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make >>>> this thing somewhat trilateral from its current >>>> bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We >>>> may not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, >>>> the initiative would already be too solidified in fact, >>>> or in people's mind for civil society support to have >>>> this kind of impact.... >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more >>>>> information emerges. We can draft a letter which is >>>>> more meaningful when we have a better idea of the >>>>> scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely >>>>> attendees, and possible processes for the conference. >>>>> It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the >>>>> next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss >>>>> at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> *From:* Deborah Brown >>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >>>>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >>>>> Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet >>>>> governance in 2014 >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm >>>>> a bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to >>>>> finalize a letter before many of us travel and are >>>>> otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make >>>>> more sense to continue this discussion online and take >>>>> advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those >>>>> of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as >>>>> others have pointed out, we know so little about the >>>>> initiative at this point. >>>>> The draft text (available here: >>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem >>>>> to capture the cautious optimism that a number of >>>>> people have expressed. I also have concerns about >>>>> providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco >>>>> Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. >>>>> Of course the text of the letter could change >>>>> dramatically in just a few hours ;) >>>>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does >>>>> imply a follow on communication with more concrete >>>>> proposals. I wonder if it might be more effective to >>>>> streamline our communication to the Brazilian >>>>> president and head of ICANN. >>>>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking >>>>> while the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. >>>>> But given the factors I mentioned above, I would >>>>> support taking some extra time if we need it. In any >>>>> case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and >>>>> continuing the discussion around this important >>>>> development. >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Deborah >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, >>>>> from the civil society, it is support for an >>>>> IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive >>>>> that the current IGF >>>>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that >>>>> may be in any way understood as "Civil >>>>> Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". >>>>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil >>>>> Society that are working on, concerned about >>>>> and/or interested in IG and Internet issues >>>>> intend to play key roles in the summit. >>>>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we >>>>> plan to pursue in the summit >>>>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder >>>>> participation >>>>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about >>>>> the diverse roles that CS can play and that >>>>> some time in Bali will be dedicated to the >>>>> issue during the BB meeting in Bali. >>>>> >>>>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be >>>>> discussing the MS Selection processes, and I do >>>>> hope, personally that we can use that opportunity >>>>> to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on >>>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>>>> >>>>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will >>>>> be back online and I'm happy to contribute >>>>> language if any text begins to surface. In case I >>>>> do not, here are my ideas: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is >>>>> supporting, which is the idea, and not the >>>>> institutions >>>>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to >>>>> engage >>>>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the >>>>> Multistakeholder principle >>>>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are >>>>> ongoing >>>>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete >>>>> engagement proposals >>>>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, >>>>> to help us scope the idea itself. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Nnenna >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear people, >>>>> >>>>> For the level of information I have (which is >>>>> basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to >>>>> host a Summit on Internet after April - >>>>> coincidentally or right after the meeting on >>>>> Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential >>>>> elections period), I don't feel comfortable >>>>> about writing a letter congratulating for >>>>> something I dont really know what it is. >>>>> >>>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to >>>>> start working on our agenda online and, with a >>>>> potential to be much richer, during our >>>>> several meetings in Bali. (what do we want >>>>> from all this besides participating in the >>>>> Summit??) >>>>> >>>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to >>>>> understand and discuss this with the Brazilian >>>>> government and Brazilian colleagues from civil >>>>> society or other sectors. And see what is the >>>>> final draft of Marco Civil that the government >>>>> will bring to our table very soon (if it truly >>>>> endorses all the principles she has mentioned >>>>> at the UNGA). >>>>> >>>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over >>>>> cautious position, but I really need more >>>>> inputs to see the big picture. >>>>> All the best >>>>> >>>>> joana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael >>>>> gurstein >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> >>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net ] >>>>> On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>>> To: McTim >>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> ; >>>>> michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik >>>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; >>>>> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> >,; >>>>> NCSG List >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] >>>>> Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will >>>>> host world event on Internet governance in >>>>> 2014 >>>>> >>>>> Dear compa McT, >>>>> >>>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you >>>>> will not change your logical view... >>>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of >>>>> people in all sectors who feel >>>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of >>>>> Brazil and its concrete proposals to >>>>> finally move on. >>>>> >>>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the >>>>> motivation -- Rousseff's statement >>>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the >>>>> basic principles most of civil society >>>>> defends (which she has repeated several >>>>> times in her radio program and her >>>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to >>>>> build a planetary framework of >>>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, >>>>> from a meeting of IP addressers >>>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do >>>>> you think Fadi just dropped by the >>>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and >>>>> entered to sell that proposal? :) >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that >>>>> this is not a proposal for yet >>>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of >>>>> the UN chatting space called IGF, >>>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. >>>>> It is a major achievement that >>>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead >>>>> this effort jointly with BR. >>>>> >>>>> All the more so because, as you know, >>>>> there are strong sectors within the >>>>> government who would love to bring the >>>>> root-zone to the purview of the ITU, >>>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the >>>>> pluriparticipative model of governance >>>>> we defend, and who are basically >>>>> associated with the transnational telecom >>>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks >>>>> in BR. >>>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge >>>>> wall here, to defend those >>>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and >>>>> emerging from the meeting with thar >>>>> proposal was a major political milestone >>>>> for her in those internal disputes >>>>> as well. >>>>> >>>>> [] fraterno >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has >>>>> accepted our invitation that we >>>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>>> > >>>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos >>>>> A. Afonso >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a >>>>> few times more... :) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> --c.a. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, >>>>> michael gurstein >>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical >>>>> everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats >>>>> off to Fadi for getting this >>>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if >>>>> the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April >>>>> next year to discuss names and >>>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that >>>>> she is by-passing the quite >>>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" >>>>> crusade and the status quo which it >>>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete >>>>> errr. (non) rules and regs. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the >>>>> video again several times that >>>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of >>>>> the Montevideoans) that are >>>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the >>>>> idea of the Summit comes from >>>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>> @joana_varon >>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>> Senior Policy Analyst >>>>> Access | accessnow.org >>>>> rightscon.org >>>>> >>>>> @deblebrown >>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 12 02:57:53 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:57:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] ANSWER TO PROCEDURAL QUESTION Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20131012085753.0cc7081f@quill> Parminder wrote: > Co-coordinators: Is is time to check rough consensus on the shorter > version or not yet? [with IGC coordinator hat on] In the decision-making process outlined in the IGC Charter, the rough consensus process is described as something to be used only if full consensus cannot be reached, and only after it has been seriously attempted to integrate differing views. I don't think that it would be procedurally valid to try to apply the rough consensus process right now. What I would like to see in the current situation is a formal proposal, posted in the “DMP}“ thread, from one of those who consider the shorter version preferable. Justfication for the proposed change (to totally replace the draft under consideration in the formal IGC decision making process with a specific shorter letter text) should please be included together with the request for the change. I'd follow that with a formal consensus call on the proposal to change the text at the basis of the consensus process, as well as on the proposal to accept the shorter version as final. If the second aspect of that consensus call goes through unopposed, we'll have a decision. Otherwise we'll need to make a serious attempt to integrate the differing views that are posted during the consens call timeframe. (As previously noted, we're going to have to operate on a tight timeframe here, since the political window of opportunity that we're seeking to use here has itself a tight timeframe. For this reason I hereby repeat my request to all IGC members who care about being able to participate in this decision-making process to please check their mail at least every 12 hours.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 03:02:55 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:02:55 +1200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <20131012082739.5ac8c2bb@quill> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20131012082739.5ac8c2bb@quill> Message-ID: My personal view is to omit from credit neither organization nor nation. Civil society is already on record via the previous letter. We need to stick to alerting them of the need for inclusion and civil society participation. This will give is a neutral position. At this stage, civil society needs to be neutral until we are fully aware of the scope of such a meeting. What certainly needs to happen is that we need to ask for the scope of such a meeting and find out intended objectives. We could also secure a meeting in Brazil where we could discuss this informally over coffee in Bali. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 12, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > McTim wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: >> [..] >> What I want is to speak the truth. >> >> As you yourself said above: >> >>> "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by Fadi >>> and accepted by Dilma." > > Let's use language that credits both ICANN and Brazil for the > initiative, and which mentions the government of Brazil in the more > prominent first spot. > > Logically, saying “initiative of the government of Brazil and the > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)” is exactly > as accurate as it is to put ICANN first, regardless of whose idea is > was initially. > > I think that there are several good reasons for mentioning the > government of Brazil first: > > * While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an > event has come from ICANN, overall what has set this whole thing in > motion was the Brazilian president's speech at the UN GA. > > * We're writing to the Brazilian government, which is the party that > we as civil society need to communicate to in order to get included. > There is no risk of anyone from the ICANN side doing anything to lock > anyone out from this process. If civil society gets locked out, that > will be an action of government bureaucrats who either have unhealthy > connections to telecom business people with a pre-Internet mindset, or > who have a pre-Internet telecom mindset themselves. We're seeking to > prevent this by writing to someone with the power to prevent this from > happening. It is IMO only polite to mention the addressee's role in > the initiative first. If the letter is perceived as impolite or > even offensive, which could easily happen if a non-government entity > is mentioned more prominently or more respectfully than the > governmental addressee of the letter, that's certainly make it less > likely to achieve our goal. > > * Ultimately what counts in moving this plan forward is the power > to attract state actors to a high-level event. This power is in the > hands of the Brazilian government. From this perspective, I think > that the media reports are 100% accurate who put it as an initiative > of the Brazilian president that she has decided to undertake on the > basis of having informed herself well (which she did by means of > talking with someone of great and widely recognized specific > expertise in Internet governance). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 12 03:04:09 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:04:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] LETTER DRAFTING Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52584563.7020504@cafonso.ca> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <52569423.1020103@cafonso.ca> <20131010135741.51590470@quill> <52569702.3060507@cafonso.ca> <20131010173433.1c2299c5@quill> <20131010190612.07b38ddf@quill> <5256E8B5.4050005@cafonso.ca> <20131011125915.283b4214@quill> <52584563.7020504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20131012090409.25ac65e6@quill> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Not sure I will be able to do it in person given that in a few days I > will be off to Bali. But if we do have a letter to her, we can make > sure it gets to her. Very good!!! Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 03:04:03 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:04:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> Message-ID: <400B785E-4EC1-4161-AED8-221B0BF773D8@gmail.com> > On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 12/10/2013, at 1:07 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. > > > Also blogging about it. Use your own organisational or personal blog if you have one. If you don't, CircleID is a good choice. Otherwise you can actually blog at igcaucus.org itself, or igf-online.net or igfwatch.org. This (particularly CircleID) would have more reach than a letter anyway. > Fantastic idea! > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 12 03:11:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:11:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Informal meetings in Bali (was Re: DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process) In-Reply-To: References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20131012082739.5ac8c2bb@quill> Message-ID: <20131012091148.12eac9bb@quill> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro : > What certainly needs to happen is that we need to ask for the scope > of such a meeting and find out intended objectives. We could also > secure a meeting in Brazil where we could discuss this informally > over coffee in Bali. +1 Since at this stage surely nothing is formalized, informal conversations are the way to go to find out the intentions. In my mind, one of the main benefits of the kind of letter that we're planning is that it will greatly increase the set of opportunities for such conversations in Bali. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Oct 12 04:58:32 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 10:58:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill>,<9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi I agree with Anriette that the shorter version is better and the IGF should be mentioned. The statement could be seen and the summit will presumably involve governments that have been dismissive or opposed to the IGF and multistakeholder more generally, so it'd be good to underscore the need for open and inclusive dialogue before the summit is taken up in the GA or other settings. Best Bill On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter > version which I think is very good. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, and to contributing > to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and > other's advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter > I also believe we need to be consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was > made by India and Brazil there was an outcry in the IGF community and > all three governments were urged to discuss these proposals at the IGF > before tabling them at the GA? > > Do we no longer think this is important? > > Anriette > > > On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Quick edit of last paragraph. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter >> version. >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of >> the Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and >> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest >> and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to contributing >> to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Norbert Bollow >> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting has >> taken place: >> >> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the government >> of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of >> the Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and >> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest >> and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil >> society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from >> agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the >> planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested >> parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the >> broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including >> support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit >> of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. >> >> We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition >> and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many >> important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this >> context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil >> society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, >> and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the >> national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move >> these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet >> governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing >> concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet >> governance. >> >> We look forward to learning more details of the event as >> they emerge and to contributing to this with specific and concrete >> proposals which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming >> meetings during the Bali IGF. >> >> The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world offer >> their support to your initiative and will look forward to partnering in >> its various processes as they evolve. >> >> We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the >> global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and >> arrangements that develop from it. >> >> Yours sincerely >> --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and one >> that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has come out >> of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC members have >> already participated, I feel that it may be best to take this as the >> starting point for the IGC consensus process. >> >> The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least >> rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some >> some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that >> up also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to >> endorse. >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a >> specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask >> for this change. >> >> In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most >> effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high priority >> and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I have no >> idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus process >> deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly >> time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like >> to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of >> the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at >> least every twelve hours. >> >> The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such a >> letter to be voiced, is also still open. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 05:02:02 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 18:02:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> Message-ID: Off-list Hi Bill, You agree with the letter?we cannot wait to have more info? Rafik On Oct 12, 2013 5:59 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi > > I agree with Anriette that the shorter version is better and the IGF > should be mentioned. The statement could be seen and the summit will > presumably involve governments that have been dismissive or opposed to the > IGF and multistakeholder more generally, so it'd be good to underscore the > need for open and inclusive dialogue before the summit is taken up in the > GA or other settings. > > Best > > Bill > > On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter > version which I think is very good. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to > discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, > and to contributing > to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and > other's advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter > I also believe we need to be consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was > made by India and Brazil there was an outcry in the IGF community and > all three governments were urged to discuss these proposals at the IGF > before tabling them at the GA? > > Do we no longer think this is important? > > Anriette > > > On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Quick edit of last paragraph. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ > ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter > version. > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of > the Brazilian government > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and > to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest > and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to > contributing > to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting has > taken place: > > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ > Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the government > of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of > the Brazilian government > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and > to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest > and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil > society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from > agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the > planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested > parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the > broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including > support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit > of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. > > We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition > and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many > important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this > context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil > society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, > and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the > national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move > these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet > governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing > concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet > governance. > > We look forward to learning more details of the event as > they emerge and to contributing to this with specific and concrete > proposals which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming > meetings during the Bali IGF. > > The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world offer > their support to your initiative and will look forward to partnering in > its various processes as they evolve. > > We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the > global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and > arrangements that develop from it. > > Yours sincerely > --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and one > that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has come out > of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC members have > already participated, I feel that it may be best to take this as the > starting point for the IGC consensus process. > > The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least > rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some > some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that > up also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to > endorse. > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a > specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask > for this change. > > In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most > effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high priority > and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I have no > idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus process > deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly > time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like > to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of > the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at > least every twelve hours. > > The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such a > letter to be voiced, is also still open. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat Oct 12 05:25:33 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:25:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process Message-ID: Parminder's proposal is fine. A longer text is going to make it less significant. Louis - - - On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 6:10 AM, parminder wrote: > Add a sentence just before the line to the following effect > > "Civil society offers to fully participate in the initiative as an equal > partner, various process of which should be open and inclusive, Brazil has > an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to > many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with > it on this initiative. " > > Whereby the statement would look like as follows: > > (begins) > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the > Brazilian government. > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for > the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with > the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to > “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust > in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the future > of the development of the Internet in the global public interest and for > the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > Civil society offers to fully participate in the initiative as an equal > partner, various process of which should be open and inclusive, Brazil has > an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to > many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with > Brazil on this initiative. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to > contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > (ends) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Sat Oct 12 05:33:07 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:33:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> Message-ID: After Brazil, what next? "The outcomes should be action-oriented, proposing concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet governance acceptable to all." On who should get credit, lets remember this "It is wise to persuade people to do things and make them think it was their own idea." - Nelson Mandela Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 12 October 2013 12:02, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Off-list > > Hi Bill, > > You agree with the letter?we cannot wait to have more info? > > Rafik > On Oct 12, 2013 5:59 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I agree with Anriette that the shorter version is better and the IGF >> should be mentioned. The statement could be seen and the summit will >> presumably involve governments that have been dismissive or opposed to the >> IGF and multistakeholder more generally, so it'd be good to underscore the >> need for open and inclusive dialogue before the summit is taken up in the >> GA or other settings. >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> >> I would add just one reference to the final paragraph of this shorter >> version which I think is very good. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to >> discussing it further at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Bali, >> and to contributing >> to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >> >> I am not opposed to this letter, but still leaning toward's Anja and >> other's advice to wait a while. I also feel the letter >> I also believe we need to be consistent. When the 2011 IBSA proposal was >> made by India and Brazil there was an outcry in the IGF community and >> all three governments were urged to discuss these proposals at the IGF >> before tabling them at the GA? >> >> Do we no longer think this is important? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 11/10/2013 21:35, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> Quick edit of last paragraph. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> Far too long. If we are to send anything, here is a suggested shorter >> version. >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of >> the Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and >> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest >> and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to >> contributing >> to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Norbert Bollow >> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:29 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> Here is the current content of the etherpad where informal drafting has >> taken place: >> >> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to the government >> of Brazil in regard to the planned event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of >> the Brazilian government >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and >> to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest >> and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look to civil >> society being an equal partner to this dialogue at all stages from >> agenda-setting onwards, and that the preparatory process for the >> planned event be open and transparent and inclusive of all interested >> parties. This process should be particularly focused on realizing the >> broadest base of shared benefits for the global community including >> support for economic and social development, and innovation in pursuit >> of the resolution of significant matters of broad impact and concern. >> >> We further note with appreciation that Brazil has a strong tradition >> and experience with effective partnerships with civil society on many >> important domestic and global issues, including most notably for this >> context the proposed Marco Civil for which we as international civil >> society organizations and individuals provide our strong endorsement, >> and the highly successful CGI model of Internet governance at the >> national level. This event presents an outstanding opportunity to move >> these experiences forward into the emerging area of global Internet >> governance. The discussions should be action-oriented, proposing >> concrete measures to democratise and internationalise global Internet >> governance. >> >> We look forward to learning more details of the event as >> they emerge and to contributing to this with specific and concrete >> proposals which will be the subject of discussion during upcoming >> meetings during the Bali IGF. >> >> The undersigned civil society organisations from across the world offer >> their support to your initiative and will look forward to partnering in >> its various processes as they evolve. >> >> We look forward to contributing to the successful development of the >> global Internet governance event in 2014 and to the new mechanisms and >> arrangements that develop from it. >> >> Yours sincerely >> --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> I personally would have preferred a simpler and shorter letter (and one >> that is more specifically from IGC) but since this is what has come out >> of an informal drafting process in which quite a few IGC members have >> already participated, I feel that it may be best to take this as the >> starting point for the IGC consensus process. >> >> The idea here is that I hope that IGC can reach consensus (or at least >> rough consensus) on either accepting this text as-is, or on some >> some modified version is derived from this, and that we'd then put that >> up also inviting civil society organizations as well as individuals to >> endorse. >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Please post any disagreements regarding the draft text together with a >> specific proposal for a change and your justification for why you ask >> for this change. >> >> In view of the situation that the letter can be expected to be most >> effective if it is ready soon, please give this process a high priority >> and post change requests as quickly as reasonably possible. I have no >> idea yet what will be appropriate in regard to consensus process >> deadlines. Just in case we might end in an unpleasantly >> time-constrained situation where tight deadlines are needed, I'd like >> to request IGC members who strongly care about the specific details of >> the outcome of this consensus process to check their IGC email at >> least every twelve hours. >> >> The other thread, in which I invited any fundamental objection to such a >> letter to be voiced, is also still open. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Sat Oct 12 06:26:29 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:26:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5258E3D7.5000603@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <5258E3D7.5000603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > > You think Rousseff reads CircleID? .... And even if she does, is it the > same thing hearing agreements from some blogger somewhere, as a collective > letter from prominent global civil society members... And also why dont we > then always just individually blog our views on UN or ITU processes rather > than bother everyone else about making statements and so no.... > > There is no harm in blogs accompanying the letter. You cannot tell the impact of blogs unless a comprehensive research has been done. Blogs help shape opinions, and deliver view points to the masses that would otherwise remain in the dark.. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 07:40:09 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:40:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <400B785E-4EC1-4161-AED8-221B0BF773D8@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <400B785E-4EC1-4161-AED8-221B0BF773D8@gmail.com> Message-ID: Anja has a point... and so does Parminder. We wouldn't want this initiative to set in as one of two leaders of two camps, with CS being only reactive (as often) after the details of the initiative are defined, or even after that narrative about the initiative is widely publicized. I have to say I'm a little surprised, for all the energy and time we have spent debating ourselves and against each others over the last too many months, and too many other months before that, and again before, etc. we do not have at this point a compiled list of critical questions, items, issues we think are priorities that need to be addressed as part of international policy for the global internet governance. Ideally, the existence of such list would have helped address the two perspectives: Put international CS on the map within a couple of days after the news emerged and yet in a way that is even more substantive than the initiative itself in its initial form. Imagine that! Maybe those high-level leaders and their institutions would now be reacting to CS in the process of moving their agenda forward on this. And I shall add that exactly was the challenge put before us by the Indian Minister we met in Baku. To paraphrase, he basically said and asked: You (CS) know as well as we (Govt.) do that these issues are complex, and there is no simple, one-sided solution. As the challenges of the internet continue to manifest themselves, governments will always try to do what they do best (at least from the standpoint of states), the best way they know. But in the meantime what are you CS proposing? How can you help us do what needs to be done without unwanted collateral damages (wrt the rights of honest people, etc.)? (Or something along those lines.) I know there are individuals among us who have been doing substantive work, including research. But as a whole, we CS enjoy chatters. We always seem to want to have a place at the table before thinking things through. And we put our small money where our mouth is, that is, in chatters. And our energy in contentious useless debates. Now back to the main point: Could the following be a worthy solution? Send a brief message of support to the initiative but at a lower level than the presidency, in which we would also announce that a letter to the president will follow within the next two weeks or so. The recipient for the Brazilian government should be someone who has enough official credentials to receive such communications on behalf of the government (starting with Mr Daniel Calvacanti possibly all the way to the Minister) while avoiding any official who might be on the opposite side to President Rousseff on this issue in terms of the Brazilian domestic politics (for instance if that were to be the case of the Minister, avoid this letter going there.) Just an idea I'm tossing around... Not sure it really resolves any of the problems underlining the two perspectives mentioned above. Lastly, to those who want to further entertain the debate about whether these leaders mean what they say, and by the way, what is it that is entailed by what they just said, etc. I'd like to remind you that being strategic is also sometimes to take someone's at his (positive) word and gently push / help him along while keeping your skepticism to yourself. Of course such skepticism will be useful in watching closely the other person's moves and anticipating or getting ready for possible alternate courses of action in case the other person in his actions defaults on his declared intentions. But it shouldn't prevent us from moving forward at first on the basis of an optimistic premise drawn from a probable / justifiable / demonstrable meaning of what they've said. So we don't really need to figure out whether anyone is being naive here or to sit around and wait for anyone to dot the i's and cross the t's in this proposal before we can move on it. My 2, uh... cedies (Ghana currency, in my other wallet, which I can't use where I am, so there you have it.) Mawaki On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 12/10/2013, at 1:07 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other > ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are > interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by > communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we > can work with them on this through the IGF. > > > Also blogging about it. Use your own organisational or personal blog if > you have one. If you don't, CircleID is a good choice. Otherwise you can > actually blog at igcaucus.org itself, or igf-online.net or igfwatch.org. > This (particularly CircleID) would have more reach than a letter anyway. > > Fantastic idea! > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Oct 12 09:40:14 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 15:40:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1179958410.12230.1381585214823.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k17> OK Louis, +1 Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 12/10/13 11:26 > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "parminder" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > Parminder's proposal is fine. A longer text is going to make it less significant. > > Louis > - - - > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 6:10 AM, parminder wrote: > Add a sentence just before the line to the following effect > > "Civil society offers to fully participate in the initiative as an equal partner, various process of which should be open and inclusive, Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with it on this initiative. " > > Whereby the statement would look like as follows: > > (begins) > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the Brazilian government. > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > Civil society offers to fully participate in the initiative as an equal partner, various process of which should be open and inclusive, Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with Brazil on this initiative. > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > > (ends) > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 12 09:52:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:22:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <400B785E-4EC1-4161-AED8-221B0BF773D8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52595412.7040907@itforchange.net> Thanks for this excellent analysis, Mawaki, Just adding a few more points. Most of such 'really politically meaningful' initiatives like the Rousseff-ICANN one, rather the somewhat less than real ones like the IGF, look at civil society as a pesky, disruptive group of people, and would not dare take them in into the core organising effort in any really meaningful way... Brazil has been different in substantial ways, both at domestic as well as global levels, and there is an outside chance here that civil society, in its real sense rather just co-opting select people, may just get in a foot in the door early. With the possibility that civil society could in fact be a real partner, as to some extent it is in the Open Government Partnership.... However, unlike like open gov movement, global IG is a highly political space, and any such opportunity will quickly lost. Be sure that right now many big global powers are making fervent calculations about how to respond to this sudden development of Dilma-ICANN initiative, and they will set in various kinds of strategies - including subversive ones - very soon. The canvass therefore is a rapidly shifting one, and if civil society has to act, it has to act rapidly - whichever be the directions of its efforts. That is all.. parminder On Saturday 12 October 2013 05:10 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Anja has a point... and so does Parminder. We wouldn't want this > initiative to set in as one of two leaders of two camps, with CS being > only reactive (as often) after the details of the initiative are > defined, or even after that narrative about the initiative is widely > publicized. I have to say I'm a little surprised, for all the energy > and time we have spent debating ourselves and against each others over > the last too many months, and too many other months before that, and > again before, etc. we do not have at this point a compiled list of > critical questions, items, issues we think are priorities that need to > be addressed as part of international policy for the global internet > governance. > > Ideally, the existence of such list would have helped address the two > perspectives: Put international CS on the map within a couple of days > after the news emerged and yet in a way that is even more substantive > than the initiative itself in its initial form. Imagine that! Maybe > those high-level leaders and their institutions would now be reacting > to CS in the process of moving their agenda forward on this. > > And I shall add that exactly was the challenge put before us by the > Indian Minister we met in Baku. To paraphrase, he basically said and > asked: You (CS) know as well as we (Govt.) do that these issues are > complex, and there is no simple, one-sided solution. As the challenges > of the internet continue to manifest themselves, governments will > always try to do what they do best (at least from the standpoint of > states), the best way they know. But in the meantime what are you CS > proposing? How can you help us do what needs to be done without > unwanted collateral damages (wrt the rights of honest people, etc.)? > (Or something along those lines.) I know there are individuals among > us who have been doing substantive work, including research. But as a > whole, we CS enjoy chatters. We always seem to want to have a place at > the table before thinking things through. And we put our small money > where our mouth is, that is, in chatters. And our energy in > contentious useless debates. > > Now back to the main point: Could the following be a worthy solution? > Send a brief message of support to the initiative but at a lower level > than the presidency, in which we would also announce that a letter to > the president will follow within the next two weeks or so. The > recipient for the Brazilian government should be someone who has > enough official credentials to receive such communications on behalf > of the government (starting with Mr Daniel Calvacanti possibly all the > way to the Minister) while avoiding any official who might be on the > opposite side to President Rousseff on this issue in terms of the > Brazilian domestic politics (for instance if that were to be the case > of the Minister, avoid this letter going there.) Just an idea I'm > tossing around... Not sure it really resolves any of the problems > underlining the two perspectives mentioned above. > > Lastly, to those who want to further entertain the debate about > whether these leaders mean what they say, and by the way, what is it > that is entailed by what they just said, etc. I'd like to remind you > that being strategic is also sometimes to take someone's at his > (positive) word and gently push / help him along while keeping your > skepticism to yourself. Of course such skepticism will be useful in > watching closely the other person's moves and anticipating or getting > ready for possible alternate courses of action in case the other > person in his actions defaults on his declared intentions. But it > shouldn't prevent us from moving forward at first on the basis of an > optimistic premise drawn from a probable / justifiable / demonstrable > meaning of what they've said. So we don't really need to figure out > whether anyone is being naive here or to sit around and wait for > anyone to dot the i's and cross the t's in this proposal before we can > move on it. > > My 2, uh... cedies (Ghana currency, in my other wallet, which I can't > use where I am, so there you have it.) > > Mawaki > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > > On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >> On 12/10/2013, at 1:07 AM, Anja Kovacs > > wrote: >> >>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There >>> are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian >>> government that we are interested in working with them on this >>> and support this idea, including by communicating with them to >>> find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with >>> them on this through the IGF. >> >> Also blogging about it. Use your own organisational or personal >> blog if you have one. If you don't, CircleID is a good choice. >> Otherwise you can actually blog at igcaucus.org >> itself, or igf-online.net >> or igfwatch.org . >> This (particularly CircleID) would have more reach than a letter >> anyway. >> > Fantastic idea! > >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 10:07:24 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 07:07:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: The Core Internet institutions abandon the US Government Message-ID: <016001cec754$663e6af0$32bb40d0$@gmail.com> For those who haven't seen this very widely circulated blogpost from our colleague Milton. This provides what I think should be our understanding of how many of the major players are understanding both the Montevideo statement and the Brazil initiative and I believe, strongly reinforces Parminder and other's assessment of why we should attempt to insert ourselves now rather than later. The world which we are attempting to help shape has shifted dramatically in the last few days and even if some are less enthusiastic about those changes than others (for various reasons) we need to act or be left behind. M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 9:30 PM To: Economics of IP Networks Subject: The Core Internet institutions abandon the US Government Milton Mueller: The core Internet institutions abandon the US Government http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions- abandon-the-us-government/ Montevideo Statement: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07oct13-en.htm -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 10:22:27 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 07:22:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process Message-ID: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> [MG>] As per the various discussions, comments, suggestions could I now formally propose the following shorter text to replace the draft text currently under consideration M Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the Brazilian government, We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the future development of the Internet in the global public interest and for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. Civil society offers to fully participate in this undertaking as an equal partner, whose various processes we believe should be open and inclusive. Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative. In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. We also look forward to carrying on a dialogue on this initiative at the upcoming Bali IGF. Sincerely, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 12 10:55:29 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 16:55:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> References: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131012165529.5e9192e5@swan.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > [MG>] As per the various discussions, comments, suggestions could I > now formally propose the following shorter text to replace the draft > text currently under consideration [with IGC coordinator hat on] Thanks Michael! I was getting a bit uneasy procedurally as it was not quite clear how the text that consensus was apparently developing around would be related to the formal IGC decision-making process that had been initiated as being based on a different text (the one taken from what was at that time the status of the etherpad). On the basis of this proposal, I hereby issue the following two-part consensus call: 1) Do we have consensus on using the text that Michael posted as the basis for going forward? Any objections to this part should please state explicitly something like "I object to part 1 of the consensus call" and give a justification, i.e. an explanation of why for some specific reason this text is worse than the original draft that came from the etherpad. 2) Do we have consensus on accepting this text as-is without further changes? Any objections to this part should please state explicitly something like "I object to part 2 of the consensus call", and make an explicit change request (i.e. you'd make an explicit proposal with new text and a clear indication of where it would go, and/or what should be deleted) and justification (i.e. and explanation why this change is in your view necessary). Please post any objections to either part 1 or part 2 by Sunday Oct 13 6am UTC. Silence will be interpreted as no-objection. Explicit statements of support will not influence this stage of the process materially, but are nevertheless very welcome! A full copy of the concerned proposed text follows. Greetings, Norbert > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the > Brazilian government, > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” > and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future development of the Internet in the global public interest and > for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > Civil society offers to fully participate in this undertaking as an > equal partner, whose various processes we believe should be open and > inclusive. Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society > partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, > and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to > contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > We also look forward to carrying on a dialogue on this initiative at > the upcoming Bali IGF. > > Sincerely, -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 12 11:35:18 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 17:35:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] New IG Season for India? References: <74011811F13C78449ED5BC8C61B9599087340461@bln-mbx04.aa.bund.de> <74011811F13C78449ED5BC8C61B9599087340896@bln-mbx04.aa.bund.de> <74011811F13C78449ED5BC8C61B95990873408DB@bln-mbx04.aa.bund.de> <74011811F13C78449ED5BC8C61B9599087340C87@bln-mbx04.aa.bund.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Parminder, do you have any information about the Cyberconference in New Dehli, October 14 - 15 under the leadership of Indian Minister Sibal? Is this Indians contribution to the "new Season"? Are you or IT for Change involved? There is a session on Multistakeholderism on Day 2 which speaks about the need to strengthen civil society impact. As you remember, we always argued that good Internet governance starts at home. Do you have something like the Brazilians in India (Marco Civil/cgi.br?). Can you give us and this list some information? This would be certainly useful also to prepare the various principles sessions in Bali. Thanks. wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CYFY PRG2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 229146 bytes Desc: CYFY PRG2.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Oct 12 11:55:46 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 15:55:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> ,<5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2849DE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My 1 cent on why I support Parminder and others on proceeding: 1) rather than - wait - for others to set agenda for next April meeting, shouldn't civil society be asserting its intention to co-set the agenda? Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 2:31 AM To: Rafik Dammak Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Rafik I did argue the potential benefits at length. At the same time, logic of cautious wait may also appears as sound. Finally, it is ones politics - and the extent of ones disenchantment with the status quo of power in global IG. As for those who are rather disenchanted, this is a major potential opening for a disruptive impact, something that has come after a long time, due to certain historical matching of political configurations - a prime element of which is the near universal global outrage following Snowden revelations. And such openings dont come everyday. To those, like for instance us, for whom there is major issue today about who has power and who hasnt in global IG, and is marginalised, it is difficult to let go such a prime opportunity without making the best attempt to leverage it. That is the simple fact here. To others, there may be less threat in status quo and more in the possible/ likely new configurations. Well, that is how it is then... But we should understand and acknowledge the politics that lies behind it.. It is not some simple technical difference of appreciating whether entrepreneurial political opportunism is better or conservative caution is more well-advised. Well, consensus-ism often does get used to safeguard the status quo. If anybody is in fact ready to convey the statement to Rousseff, our organisation's intention is still to go ahead with it. Hopefully IGC would sign it, but if not, those who want to send it can do so. Co-coordinators: Is is time to check rough consensus on the shorter version or not yet? parminder On Saturday 12 October 2013 10:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hello, Firstly, we can take the usual time for seeking consensus. Just not postpone to another time... Secondly, I have not clearly heard, or any rate understood, the concerns. well I think that some people like Anriette , Anja , already expressed scepticism and asked at least to have the discuss in Bali and so waiting before sending the letter . I also didn't get till now what is the concrete outcome of sending the letter Lets be clear what we are doing at present - Just welcoming an initiative that by all means looks like a serious outcome oriented or at least outcome seeking one, and saying that we want to be there right away driving it along with others.... What is wrong with it. The potential benefit is clear - we try to get a bit tri - lateral about this initiative.... Any other time will be too late.... And as I said I dont see the downside.... for me it seems more interpretation or wishes of we may want to happen instead of having clear proofs or indications or benefits. and honestly I don't buy those arguments that we should hurry and don't miss the opportunity .any action we will take we have to bare the consequence later. I want to be sure if I got you message correctly. I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am still not convinced and I want to highlight that any action we take, will have impact soon or later and can backfire. I don't think that you would disagree with more strategical approach. You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any political act carries risk. I saw people talking about being opportunistic and pragmatic,well I will take the cynical standpoint and remind that we are dealing with politicians(even for the ICANN CEO), they will of course welcome any letter support and like it. but what what will happen if we found the initiative is going in totally different direction? are we going to send another letter? do you really think they will care about it? probably no and maybe they will keep referring to the first letter because it support them and their narrative. why not investigating first and getting more details about what they have in mind before hurrying? should we jump there because one public statement?how can we make strategical decision with such few details? idem for people talking about benefit and opportunity to be part of the initiative but didn't give any clarification how that will happen. kind of shot first and then wait and see? anyway, I expressed my concern about sending letter to support initiative yet to be defined, that we don't have so much details about and without consensus on strategy that we have follow. Best, Rafik Regards, parminder Best, Rafik 2013/10/11 parminder > It is here http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus document of demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and strong letter, of a few sentences, that Brazilian President or some top guy would actually read, and not get confusing messages. I am not saying we should not say whatever we definitively want to say - but be clear and short, that is all. parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Parminder, sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing here? can you please clarify? Rafik 2013/10/11 parminder > Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this is a practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok that we can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential game changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to be setting in)... parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its interest... Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no good... Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains we can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the appropriate response. ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support this proposal. In supporting it, we would only be saying - (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden manner, (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of status quo,and that (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, saying this is not at all what we bargained for) So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society support to have this kind of impact.... Parminder On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali and before then try to find out a little more. Ian Peter From: Deborah Brown Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM To: Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear all, I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the initiative at this point. The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours ;) I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and head of ICANN. To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion around this important development. Best regards, Deborah On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: Dear all 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive that the current IGF 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues intend to play key roles in the summit. 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in the summit 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue during the BB meeting in Bali. If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is the idea, and not the institutions 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder principle 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope the idea itself. Best Nnenna On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon > wrote: Dear people, For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in the Summit??) In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but I really need more inputs to see the big picture. All the best joana On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: +1 M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Dear compa McT, You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical view... :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete proposals to finally move on. At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's statement at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil society defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program and her twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP addressers in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just dropped by the presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that proposal? :) Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for yet another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space called IGF, as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement that that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors within the government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of governance we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational telecom oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with thar proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal disputes as well. [] fraterno --c.a. On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation that we > hold next year a Global Summit" > > Seem fairly clear to me. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>> going and putting that into play. >>> >>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names and >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which it >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times that >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes from >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>> >>> > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nlevins at american.edu Sat Oct 12 12:25:03 2013 From: nlevins at american.edu (Nanette Levinson) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:25:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52595412.7040907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sent from my iPad On Oct 12, 2013, at 9:53 AM, "parminder" wrote: > Thanks for this excellent analysis, Mawaki, > > Just adding a few more points. > > Most of such 'really politically meaningful' initiatives like the Rousseff-ICANN one, rather the somewhat less than real ones like the IGF, look at civil society as a pesky, disruptive group of people, and would not dare take them in into the core organising effort in any really meaningful way... Brazil has been different in substantial ways, both at domestic as well as global levels, and there is an outside chance here that civil society, in its real sense rather just co-opting select people, may just get in a foot in the door early. With the possibility that civil society could in fact be a real partner, as to some extent it is in the Open Government Partnership.... However, unlike like open gov movement, global IG is a highly political space, and any such opportunity will quickly lost. Be sure that right now many big global powers are making fervent calculations about how to respond to this sudden development of Dilma-ICANN initiative, and they will set in various kinds of strategies - including subversive ones - very soon. The canvass therefore is a rapidly shifting one, and if civil society has to act, it has to act rapidly - whichever be the directions of its efforts. That is all.. > > > parminder > > > On Saturday 12 October 2013 05:10 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Anja has a point... and so does Parminder. We wouldn't want this initiative to set in as one of two leaders of two camps, with CS being only reactive (as often) after the details of the initiative are defined, or even after that narrative about the initiative is widely publicized. I have to say I'm a little surprised, for all the energy and time we have spent debating ourselves and against each others over the last too many months, and too many other months before that, and again before, etc. we do not have at this point a compiled list of critical questions, items, issues we think are priorities that need to be addressed as part of international policy for the global internet governance. >> >> Ideally, the existence of such list would have helped address the two perspectives: Put international CS on the map within a couple of days after the news emerged and yet in a way that is even more substantive than the initiative itself in its initial form. Imagine that! Maybe those high-level leaders and their institutions would now be reacting to CS in the process of moving their agenda forward on this. >> >> And I shall add that exactly was the challenge put before us by the Indian Minister we met in Baku. To paraphrase, he basically said and asked: You (CS) know as well as we (Govt.) do that these issues are complex, and there is no simple, one-sided solution. As the challenges of the internet continue to manifest themselves, governments will always try to do what they do best (at least from the standpoint of states), the best way they know. But in the meantime what are you CS proposing? How can you help us do what needs to be done without unwanted collateral damages (wrt the rights of honest people, etc.)? (Or something along those lines.) I know there are individuals among us who have been doing substantive work, including research. But as a whole, we CS enjoy chatters. We always seem to want to have a place at the table before thinking things through. And we put our small money where our mouth is, that is, in chatters. And our energy in contentious useless debates. >> >> Now back to the main point: Could the following be a worthy solution? Send a brief message of support to the initiative but at a lower level than the presidency, in which we would also announce that a letter to the president will follow within the next two weeks or so. The recipient for the Brazilian government should be someone who has enough official credentials to receive such communications on behalf of the government (starting with Mr Daniel Calvacanti possibly all the way to the Minister) while avoiding any official who might be on the opposite side to President Rousseff on this issue in terms of the Brazilian domestic politics (for instance if that were to be the case of the Minister, avoid this letter going there.) Just an idea I'm tossing around... Not sure it really resolves any of the problems underlining the two perspectives mentioned above. >> >> Lastly, to those who want to further entertain the debate about whether these leaders mean what they say, and by the way, what is it that is entailed by what they just said, etc. I'd like to remind you that being strategic is also sometimes to take someone's at his (positive) word and gently push / help him along while keeping your skepticism to yourself. Of course such skepticism will be useful in watching closely the other person's moves and anticipating or getting ready for possible alternate courses of action in case the other person in his actions defaults on his declared intentions. But it shouldn't prevent us from moving forward at first on the basis of an optimistic premise drawn from a probable / justifiable / demonstrable meaning of what they've said. So we don't really need to figure out whether anyone is being naive here or to sit around and wait for anyone to dot the i's and cross the t's in this proposal before we can move on it. >> >> My 2, uh... cedies (Ghana currency, in my other wallet, which I can't use where I am, so there you have it.) >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/10/2013, at 1:07 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>>>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. >>>> >>>> >>>> Also blogging about it. Use your own organisational or personal blog if you have one. If you don't, CircleID is a good choice. Otherwise you can actually blog at igcaucus.org itself, or igf-online.net or igfwatch.org. This (particularly CircleID) would have more reach than a letter anyway. >>> Fantastic idea! >>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Oct 12 12:27:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:57:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] New IG Season for India? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <74011811F13C78449ED5BC8C61B9599087340461@bln-mbx04.aa.bund.de> <74011811F13C78449ED5BC8C61B9599087340896@bln-mbx04.aa.bund.de> <74011811F13C78449ED5BC8C61B95990873408DB@bln-mbx04.aa.bund.de> <74011811F13C78449ED5BC8C61B9599087340C87@bln-mbx04.aa.bund.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <399502A8-F054-4708-808F-EF8762E81B45@hserus.net> http://www.assocham.org/docs/11th-Konwledge-Summit-CyberSecurityBrochure_13.pdf CIS India and ISOC are listed as supporting partners. I also see the council of Europe and ITU APT involved. Seems to be organized mostly by a national chamber of commerce along with various Indian ministries. --srs (iPad) > On 12-Oct-2013, at 21:05, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > do you have any information about the Cyberconference in New Dehli, October 14 - 15 under the leadership of Indian Minister Sibal? Is this Indians contribution to the "new Season"? Are you or IT for Change involved? There is a session on Multistakeholderism on Day 2 which speaks about the need to strengthen civil society impact. As you remember, we always argued that good Internet governance starts at home. Do you have something like the Brazilians in India (Marco Civil/cgi.br?). > > Can you give us and this list some information? This would be certainly useful also to prepare the various principles sessions in Bali. > > Thanks. > > wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Oct 12 13:08:21 2013 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:08:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text Message-ID: Hi, If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi stakeholder push while petitioning for CS to be included?  Shouldn't we be addressing our thoughts to both of them. On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so against sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its signature to an appropriately addressed note. avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Norbert Bollow Date: 10/12/2013 10:55 (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,michael gurstein Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text Michael Gurstein wrote: > [MG>] As per the various discussions, comments, suggestions could I > now formally propose the following shorter text to replace the draft > text currently under consideration [with IGC coordinator hat on] Thanks Michael! I was getting a bit uneasy procedurally as it was not quite clear how the text that consensus was apparently developing around would be related to the formal IGC decision-making process that had been initiated as being based on a different text (the one taken from what was at that time the status of the etherpad). On the basis of this proposal, I hereby issue the following two-part consensus call: 1) Do we have consensus on using the text that Michael posted as the basis for going forward? Any objections to this part should please state explicitly something like "I object to part 1 of the consensus call" and give a justification, i.e. an explanation of why for some specific reason this text is worse than the original draft that came from the etherpad. 2) Do we have consensus on accepting this text as-is without further changes? Any objections to this part should please state explicitly something like "I object to part 2 of the consensus call", and make an explicit change request (i.e. you'd make an explicit proposal with new text and a clear indication of where it would go, and/or what should be deleted) and justification (i.e. and explanation why this change is in your view necessary). Please post any objections to either part 1 or part 2 by Sunday Oct 13 6am UTC. Silence will be interpreted as no-objection. Explicit statements of support will not influence this stage of the process materially, but are nevertheless very welcome! A full copy of the concerned proposed text follows. Greetings, Norbert > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the > Brazilian government, > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” > and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > information societies. > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > future development of the Internet in the global public interest and > for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > Civil society offers to fully participate in this undertaking as an > equal partner, whose various processes we believe should be open and > inclusive. Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society > partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, > and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative. > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to > contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. > We also look forward to carrying on a dialogue on this initiative at > the upcoming Bali IGF. > > Sincerely, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 12 13:40:10 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:40:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131012194010.40243847@quill> Avri Doria wrote: > If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders > who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi stakeholder > push while petitioning for CS to be included?  Shouldn't we be > addressing our thoughts to both of them. > > On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to > wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so against > sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its signature > to an appropriately addressed note. I don't see anything inappropriate about addressing this note to the Brazilian government. If CS doesn't get included, it wouldn't be the fault of Fadi or of anyone else at ICANN. ICANN is not in the habit of excluding stakeholders, but governments have that habit. It would be the fault of some government bureaucrat(s) either acting on (bad) habit, or acting out of an unhealthy relationship with telecom companies that still have a pre-Internet mindset, or acting of of such a pre-Internet telecom mindset they may have themselves. So it is in my view quite appropriate to communicate to the person who is able to solve this problem by simply telling her bureaucrats to work with civil society. I don't like the idea of adding Fadi to the list of addressees for this particular letter, because doing so would reduce the clarity about who needs to take the necessary action to ensure the inclusion of civil society. I do however agree on the point that there is an imbalance if we express appreciation only for the Brazilian president and government but not for the (at least in my view) at least equally significant contribution of Fadi. How about addressing a separate note to Fadi which simply expresses appreciation? If we want to take that route, it might be best to combine the endorsements / sign-on process for both letters, making it a package deal, i.e. each person or organization would either endorse both or none of the two letters. Thoughts? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Sat Oct 12 13:58:17 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:58:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) In-Reply-To: <20131012194010.40243847@quill> References: <20131012194010.40243847@quill> Message-ID: <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> FWIW: I would CC Fadi. It cannot hurt, and might help. On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders >> who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi stakeholder >> push while petitioning for CS to be included? Shouldn't we be >> addressing our thoughts to both of them. >> >> On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to >> wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so against >> sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its signature >> to an appropriately addressed note. > > I don't see anything inappropriate about addressing this note to the > Brazilian government. > > If CS doesn't get included, it wouldn't be the fault of Fadi or of > anyone else at ICANN. ICANN is not in the habit of excluding > stakeholders, but governments have that habit. It would be the fault of > some government bureaucrat(s) either acting on (bad) habit, or acting > out of an unhealthy relationship with telecom companies that still have > a pre-Internet mindset, or acting of of such a pre-Internet telecom > mindset they may have themselves. > > So it is in my view quite appropriate to communicate to the person who > is able to solve this problem by simply telling her bureaucrats to work > with civil society. > > I don't like the idea of adding Fadi to the list of addressees for this > particular letter, because doing so would reduce the clarity about who > needs to take the necessary action to ensure the inclusion of civil > society. > > I do however agree on the point that there is an imbalance if we > express appreciation only for the Brazilian president and government > but not for the (at least in my view) at least equally significant > contribution of Fadi. > > How about addressing a separate note to Fadi which simply expresses > appreciation? > > If we want to take that route, it might be best to combine the > endorsements / sign-on process for both letters, making it a package > deal, i.e. each person or organization would either endorse both or > none of the two letters. > > Thoughts? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 14:04:31 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:04:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) In-Reply-To: <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> References: <20131012194010.40243847@quill> <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <025b01cec775$87cca580$9765f080$@gmail.com> I have no objection to doing a cc: to Fadi (not exactly sure how to do it in this type of more formal letter but someone probably does... And of course, Its normal practice in any case to cc: someone who is specifically mentioned in a public communication Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:58 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: avri doria Subject: Re: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) --Apple-Mail=_8A9C4493-94F1-4116-B0F7-39E344461CE0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii FWIW: I would CC Fadi. It cannot hurt, and might help. On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders >> who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi stakeholder >> push while petitioning for CS to be included? Shouldn't we be >> addressing our thoughts to both of them. >> >> On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to >> wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so against >> sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its signature >> to an appropriately addressed note. > > I don't see anything inappropriate about addressing this note to the > Brazilian government. > > If CS doesn't get included, it wouldn't be the fault of Fadi or of > anyone else at ICANN. ICANN is not in the habit of excluding > stakeholders, but governments have that habit. It would be the fault > of some government bureaucrat(s) either acting on (bad) habit, or > acting out of an unhealthy relationship with telecom companies that > still have a pre-Internet mindset, or acting of of such a pre-Internet > telecom mindset they may have themselves. > > So it is in my view quite appropriate to communicate to the person who > is able to solve this problem by simply telling her bureaucrats to > work with civil society. > > I don't like the idea of adding Fadi to the list of addressees for > this particular letter, because doing so would reduce the clarity > about who needs to take the necessary action to ensure the inclusion > of civil society. > > I do however agree on the point that there is an imbalance if we > express appreciation only for the Brazilian president and government > but not for the (at least in my view) at least equally significant > contribution of Fadi. > > How about addressing a separate note to Fadi which simply expresses > appreciation? > > If we want to take that route, it might be best to combine the > endorsements / sign-on process for both letters, making it a package > deal, i.e. each person or organization would either endorse both or > none of the two letters. > > Thoughts? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t --Apple-Mail=_8A9C4493-94F1-4116-B0F7-39E344461CE0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJSWY25AAoJEEVwc7dMrV00ou0MAIdnY4+NpRX3g0kHOq3WYYrp ZyPtJnw66/FtTVs/PdyqtP6URzi/1/wEALSCHz1vye6Li0IgAQhF6uAkv+Pnubu0 vwyemhwK6+0NLESCLlV9pNWEUJWTRRaiRjhit6FgNC8zx81Kgd9i7+Sw/ZO8B4Te KIwnkb+CL84KOSN7aRhWnVrafr/u2WSm1YHW4uQoqgp34AlKZqd5qd4jaynPY26+ 58Ujh/89rDxF1NUVdHR6O6ZtYz3OD+YMUOTlMXkQe/LAlLCAESxVbKKdpRdjnK/D m9oqhIa88otW/j7dlpqMQCbMAeP6BO1+duULxiB52WDVbMAiZ/BqbAad7aTylvuu a9rXIWg1xuAb1EFtfhc4X3kTDorQNIJXfNet2z3Gk26noHK7Wjf5WJoMAhZKY/3C OYRsHJ0rLhPo1uXDX7l+Zq7rsmWoLttN+1EfSpGjvhYR10AF1ghQ0YDDF2r76C4A aIJq83gG4gGughzT3VfVZf9CyYb5q7idpu36pEjyuw== =gXlu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_8A9C4493-94F1-4116-B0F7-39E344461CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; name="message-footer.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t --Apple-Mail=_8A9C4493-94F1-4116-B0F7-39E344461CE0-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 12 14:13:22 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 20:13:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) In-Reply-To: <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> References: <20131012194010.40243847@quill> <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <20131012201322.0f243882@quill> Am Sat, 12 Oct 2013 19:58:17 +0200 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart : > FWIW: I would CC Fadi. It cannot hurt, and might help. Good idea!!! Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 12 14:23:07 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 20:23:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) In-Reply-To: <025b01cec775$87cca580$9765f080$@gmail.com> References: <20131012194010.40243847@quill> <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> <025b01cec775$87cca580$9765f080$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131012202307.3afdfba6@quill> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I have no objection to doing a cc: to Fadi (not exactly sure how to > do it in this type of more formal letter but someone probably does... I'd handle this by putting "Cc: Fadi Chehadé, ICANN" at the bottom of the letter and emailing him a copy - together with wither the note of appreciation from civil society for his contribution, if we choose to take that route, or otherwise a note of appreciation signed just by myself but noting that this sentiment of appreciation for what he did to make this happen is widespread in civil society. > And of course, Its normal practice in any case to cc: someone who is > specifically mentioned in a public communication. Yup, this is a simple matter of courtesy. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat Oct 12 14:34:07 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 20:34:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. Message-ID: It's crystal clear that this Delhi Summit is all about security. While the meeting won't change the world overnight, the topic will be long lasting, and shall put State and Defense in the core of investment and decision making within national blueprints for a ruggedized society. Something similar to post-Hiroshima redesign of political strategies. Thanks USA for opening the Pandora's box. Louis - - - On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > http://www.assocham.org/docs/11th-Konwledge-Summit-CyberSecurityBrochure_13.pdf > > CIS India and ISOC are listed as supporting partners. I also see the > council of Europe and ITU APT involved. > > Seems to be organized mostly by a national chamber of commerce along with > various Indian ministries. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 12-Oct-2013, at 21:05, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > > do you have any information about the Cyberconference in New Dehli, > October 14 - 15 under the leadership of Indian Minister Sibal? Is this > Indians contribution to the "new Season"? Are you or IT for Change > involved? There is a session on Multistakeholderism on Day 2 which speaks > about the need to strengthen civil society impact. As you remember, we > always argued that good Internet governance starts at home. Do you have > something like the Brazilians in India (Marco Civil/cgi.br?). > > Can you give us and this list some information? This would be certainly > useful also to prepare the various principles sessions in Bali. > > Thanks. > > wolfgang > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Oct 12 14:52:17 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 14:52:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) In-Reply-To: <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> References: <20131012194010.40243847@quill> <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> Message-ID: Hi, I wasn't thinking of a carbon copy being sent to him. I was speaking about addressing it to the pair of them equally as the senior members of their respective stakeholder groups. Ie. To the venerable ... and the most excellent ... (or whatever the appropriate honorifics might be for this occasion). I do not have a view as to which protocol would require putting first in the list of honorifics. avri On 12 Oct 2013, at 13:58, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > FWIW: I would CC Fadi. It cannot hurt, and might help. > > On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders >>> who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi stakeholder >>> push while petitioning for CS to be included? Shouldn't we be >>> addressing our thoughts to both of them. >>> >>> On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to >>> wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so against >>> sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its signature >>> to an appropriately addressed note. >> >> I don't see anything inappropriate about addressing this note to the >> Brazilian government. >> >> If CS doesn't get included, it wouldn't be the fault of Fadi or of >> anyone else at ICANN. ICANN is not in the habit of excluding >> stakeholders, but governments have that habit. It would be the fault of >> some government bureaucrat(s) either acting on (bad) habit, or acting >> out of an unhealthy relationship with telecom companies that still have >> a pre-Internet mindset, or acting of of such a pre-Internet telecom >> mindset they may have themselves. >> >> So it is in my view quite appropriate to communicate to the person who >> is able to solve this problem by simply telling her bureaucrats to work >> with civil society. >> >> I don't like the idea of adding Fadi to the list of addressees for this >> particular letter, because doing so would reduce the clarity about who >> needs to take the necessary action to ensure the inclusion of civil >> society. >> >> I do however agree on the point that there is an imbalance if we >> express appreciation only for the Brazilian president and government >> but not for the (at least in my view) at least equally significant >> contribution of Fadi. >> >> How about addressing a separate note to Fadi which simply expresses >> appreciation? >> >> If we want to take that route, it might be best to combine the >> endorsements / sign-on process for both letters, making it a package >> deal, i.e. each person or organization would either endorse both or >> none of the two letters. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Oct 12 19:11:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:41:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8EEB48B7-1172-4665-B56C-93FAC85FB82C@hserus.net> Not very many of the actual players. Expensive registration fees. This is a talk shop and networking event more than anything else and I don't expect substantial policy outcomes. --srs (iPad) > On 13-Oct-2013, at 0:04, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > It's crystal clear that this Delhi Summit is all about security. While the meeting won't change the world overnight, the topic will be long lasting, and shall put State and Defense in the core of investment and decision making within national blueprints for a ruggedized society. Something similar to post-Hiroshima redesign of political strategies. > > Thanks USA for opening the Pandora's box. > > Louis > - - - > >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> http://www.assocham.org/docs/11th-Konwledge-Summit-CyberSecurityBrochure_13.pdf >> >> CIS India and ISOC are listed as supporting partners. I also see the council of Europe and ITU APT involved. >> >> Seems to be organized mostly by a national chamber of commerce along with various Indian ministries. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> On 12-Oct-2013, at 21:05, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> do you have any information about the Cyberconference in New Dehli, October 14 - 15 under the leadership of Indian Minister Sibal? Is this Indians contribution to the "new Season"? Are you or IT for Change involved? There is a session on Multistakeholderism on Day 2 which speaks about the need to strengthen civil society impact. As you remember, we always argued that good Internet governance starts at home. Do you have something like the Brazilians in India (Marco Civil/cgi.br?). >>> >>> Can you give us and this list some information? This would be certainly useful also to prepare the various principles sessions in Bali. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> wolfgang > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 19:58:26 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 16:58:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) In-Reply-To: References: <20131012194010.40243847@quill> <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <03a301cec7a6$f88271c0$e9875540$@gmail.com> Avri, The announcement/invitation to which we replied was issued by Ms. Rousseff/Brazil. A cc: to Chehahde/ICANN acknowledges their contribution involvement as per the body of the note. Are you making some other/political point as per your note below and if so, perhaps you could be explicit about it? M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:52 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) Hi, I wasn't thinking of a carbon copy being sent to him. I was speaking about addressing it to the pair of them equally as the senior members of their respective stakeholder groups. Ie. To the venerable ... and the most excellent ... (or whatever the appropriate honorifics might be for this occasion). I do not have a view as to which protocol would require putting first in the list of honorifics. avri On 12 Oct 2013, at 13:58, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > FWIW: I would CC Fadi. It cannot hurt, and might help. > > On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders >>> who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi >>> stakeholder push while petitioning for CS to be included? Shouldn't >>> we be addressing our thoughts to both of them. >>> >>> On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to >>> wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so >>> against sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its >>> signature to an appropriately addressed note. >> >> I don't see anything inappropriate about addressing this note to the >> Brazilian government. >> >> If CS doesn't get included, it wouldn't be the fault of Fadi or of >> anyone else at ICANN. ICANN is not in the habit of excluding >> stakeholders, but governments have that habit. It would be the fault >> of some government bureaucrat(s) either acting on (bad) habit, or >> acting out of an unhealthy relationship with telecom companies that >> still have a pre-Internet mindset, or acting of of such a >> pre-Internet telecom mindset they may have themselves. >> >> So it is in my view quite appropriate to communicate to the person >> who is able to solve this problem by simply telling her bureaucrats >> to work with civil society. >> >> I don't like the idea of adding Fadi to the list of addressees for >> this particular letter, because doing so would reduce the clarity >> about who needs to take the necessary action to ensure the inclusion >> of civil society. >> >> I do however agree on the point that there is an imbalance if we >> express appreciation only for the Brazilian president and government >> but not for the (at least in my view) at least equally significant >> contribution of Fadi. >> >> How about addressing a separate note to Fadi which simply expresses >> appreciation? >> >> If we want to take that route, it might be best to combine the >> endorsements / sign-on process for both letters, making it a package >> deal, i.e. each person or organization would either endorse both or >> none of the two letters. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Oct 12 20:46:19 2013 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 20:46:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) Message-ID: Hi  My impression is that the two of them, Brazil and ICANN, are the  ones informing the world of something they are initiating together. Similar to situations where, .e.g. the ITU and the UAE put a meeting together.  avri Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 10/12/2013 19:58 (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) Avri, The announcement/invitation to which we replied was issued by Ms. Rousseff/Brazil.  A cc: to Chehahde/ICANN acknowledges their contribution involvement as per the body of the note.  Are you making some other/political point as per your note below and if so, perhaps you could be explicit about it? M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:52 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) Hi, I wasn't thinking of a carbon copy being sent to him.  I was speaking about addressing it to the pair of them equally as  the senior members of their respective stakeholder groups. Ie. To the venerable ... and the most excellent ...  (or whatever the appropriate honorifics might be for this occasion). I do not have a view as to which protocol would require putting first in the list of honorifics. avri On 12 Oct 2013, at 13:58, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > FWIW: I would CC Fadi. It cannot hurt, and might help. > > On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders >>> who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi >>> stakeholder push while petitioning for CS to be included?  Shouldn't >>> we be addressing our thoughts to both of them. >>> >>> On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to >>> wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so >>> against sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its >>> signature to an appropriately addressed note. >> >> I don't see anything inappropriate about addressing this note to the >> Brazilian government. >> >> If CS doesn't get included, it wouldn't be the fault of Fadi or of >> anyone else at ICANN. ICANN is not in the habit of excluding >> stakeholders, but governments have that habit. It would be the fault >> of some government bureaucrat(s) either acting on (bad) habit, or >> acting out of an unhealthy relationship with telecom companies that >> still have a pre-Internet mindset, or acting of of such a >> pre-Internet telecom mindset they may have themselves. >> >> So it is in my view quite appropriate to communicate to the person >> who is able to solve this problem by simply telling her bureaucrats >> to work with civil society. >> >> I don't like the idea of adding Fadi to the list of addressees for >> this particular letter, because doing so would reduce the clarity >> about who needs to take the necessary action to ensure the inclusion >> of civil society. >> >> I do however agree on the point that there is an imbalance if we >> express appreciation only for the Brazilian president and government >> but not for the (at least in my view) at least equally significant >> contribution of Fadi. >> >> How about addressing a separate note to Fadi which simply expresses >> appreciation? >> >> If we want to take that route, it might be best to combine the >> endorsements / sign-on process for both letters, making it a package >> deal, i.e. each person or organization would either endorse both or >> none of the two letters. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 12 21:19:30 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:19:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Avri, clearly it should be addressed to both (not just cc: one party). I still haven't heard anything reality based to indicate why Brasil should be mentioned first in the first para. On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:08 PM, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders who > came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi stakeholder push while > petitioning for CS to be included? Shouldn't we be addressing our thoughts > to both of them. > > On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to wait > until we have something contentful to write, I am not so against sending > boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its signature to an > appropriately addressed note. > > avri > > Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Norbert Bollow > Date: 10/12/2013 10:55 (GMT-05:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,michael gurstein > Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text > > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> [MG>] As per the various discussions, comments, suggestions could I >> now formally propose the following shorter text to replace the draft >> text currently under consideration > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Thanks Michael! > > I was getting a bit uneasy procedurally as it was not quite clear how > the text that consensus was apparently developing around would be > related to the formal IGC decision-making process that had been > initiated as being based on a different text (the one taken from what > was at that time the status of the etherpad). > > On the basis of this proposal, I hereby issue the following two-part > consensus call: > > 1) Do we have consensus on using the text that Michael posted as the > basis for going forward? Any objections to this part should please state > explicitly something like "I object to part 1 of the consensus call" and > give a justification, i.e. an explanation of why for some specific > reason this text is worse than the original draft that came from the > etherpad. > > 2) Do we have consensus on accepting this text as-is without further > changes? Any objections to this part should please state explicitly > something like "I object to part 2 of the consensus call", and make an > explicit change request (i.e. you'd make an explicit proposal with new > text and a clear indication of where it would go, and/or what should be > deleted) and justification (i.e. and explanation why this change is in > your view necessary). > > Please post any objections to either part 1 or part 2 by Sunday Oct > 13 6am UTC. > > Silence will be interpreted as no-objection. Explicit statements of > support will not influence this stage of the process materially, but are > nevertheless very welcome! > > A full copy of the concerned proposed text follows. > > Greetings, > Norbert > >> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >> Brazilian government, >> >> We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support >> for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, >> along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” >> and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global >> information societies. >> >> We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future development of the Internet in the global public interest and >> for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> >> Civil society offers to fully participate in this undertaking as an >> equal partner, whose various processes we believe should be open and >> inclusive. Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society >> partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, >> and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative. >> >> In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to >> contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >> We also look forward to carrying on a dialogue on this initiative at >> the upcoming Bali IGF. >> >> Sincerely, > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sun Oct 13 01:08:50 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 10:38:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Does ICANN protect multistakeholderism? Message-ID: It seems that some or not quite as convinced as Norbert is that it does anymore: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/08/31/icanns-accountability-meltdown-a-four-part-series/ Which explains the discomfort of some on the list with a letter being sent out before more details are available (though the lack of detail is not a concern to me). Thanks to friends who are active in ICANN for drawing my attention to this growing concern. Best, Anja -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Oct 13 01:42:37 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 07:42:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131013074237.55a716c1@quill> McTim wrote Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:19:30 -0400: > I still haven't heard anything reality based to indicate why Brasil > should be mentioned first in the first para. I have discussed this at length in my posting of Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:27:39 +0200, which I'm copying below. If you wish to dismiss that entire posting as not “reality based”, please point out for each of the three points on what basis you claim that they are not “reality based”. In my view, what I have written is very much reality-based, and not at all ideological. Greetings, Norbert :: From: Norbert Bollow :: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, McTim :: Cc: JFC Morfin , Anriette Esterhuysen :: , Ian Peter :: Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus :: process Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:27:39 +0200 :: :: McTim wrote: :: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin :: > wrote: :: [..] :: > What I want is to speak the truth. :: > :: > As you yourself said above: :: > :: > > "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by :: > > Fadi and accepted by Dilma." :: :: Let's use language that credits both ICANN and Brazil for the :: initiative, and which mentions the government of Brazil in the more :: prominent first spot. :: :: Logically, saying “initiative of the government of Brazil and the :: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)” is :: exactly as accurate as it is to put ICANN first, regardless of whose :: idea is was initially. :: :: I think that there are several good reasons for mentioning the :: government of Brazil first: :: :: * While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an :: event has come from ICANN, overall what has set this whole thing :: in motion was the Brazilian president's speech at the UN GA. :: :: * We're writing to the Brazilian government, which is the party that :: we as civil society need to communicate to in order to get :: included. There is no risk of anyone from the ICANN side doing :: anything to lock anyone out from this process. If civil society :: gets locked out, that will be an action of government bureaucrats :: who either have unhealthy connections to telecom business people :: with a pre-Internet mindset, or who have a pre-Internet telecom :: mindset themselves. We're seeking to prevent this by writing to :: someone with the power to prevent this from happening. It is IMO :: only polite to mention the addressee's role in the initiative :: first. If the letter is perceived as impolite or even offensive, :: which could easily happen if a non-government entity is mentioned :: more prominently or more respectfully than the governmental :: addressee of the letter, that's certainly make it less likely to :: achieve our goal. :: :: * Ultimately what counts in moving this plan forward is the power :: to attract state actors to a high-level event. This power is in the :: hands of the Brazilian government. From this perspective, I think :: that the media reports are 100% accurate who put it as an :: initiative of the Brazilian president that she has decided to :: undertake on the basis of having informed herself well (which she :: did by means of talking with someone of great and widely recognized :: specific expertise in Internet governance). :: :: Greetings, :: Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sun Oct 13 01:52:13 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:22:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Thanks for laying out in such detail how you see this debate. This is very helpful to better understand your position. It also helps me to clarify the Internet Democracy Project position, as we find ourselves in neither of the two groups you describe. We do believe that the current unequal distribution of power in global Internet governance is a major problem and that the proposed meeting is a significant step in efforts to address this. We also believe, however, that the solution to this problem does not only lie in an equal and just redistribution among states, but also, and crucially, in the strengthening of civil society participation. Achieving this will not be reached by simply demanding the possibility of civil society participation again and again. We believe it is far more forceful to start participating already by making concrete proposals. It is for this reason (and because we believe letters in short succession do not add value, especially if they have nothing substantially new to add) that we proposed to wait until the Best Bits meeting next weekend. This may be a different perspective than yours, but it certainly isn't any less legitimate or valid in its commitment to a more just system of global Internet governance or an information society for all. Thanks and best, Anja On 12 October 2013 12:01, parminder wrote: > Rafik > > I did argue the potential benefits at length. At the same time, logic of > cautious wait may also appears as sound. Finally, it is ones politics - and > the extent of ones disenchantment with the status quo of power in global > IG. As for those who are rather disenchanted, this is a major potential > opening for a disruptive impact, something that has come after a long time, > due to certain historical matching of political configurations - a prime > element of which is the near universal global outrage following Snowden > revelations. And such openings dont come everyday. To those, like for > instance us, for whom there is major issue today about who has power and > who hasnt in global IG, and is marginalised, it is difficult to let go such > a prime opportunity without making the best attempt to leverage it. That > is the simple fact here. > > To others, there may be less threat in status quo and more in the > possible/ likely new configurations. Well, that is how it is then... But we > should understand and acknowledge the politics that lies behind it.. It is > not some simple technical difference of appreciating whether > entrepreneurial political opportunism is better or conservative caution is > more well-advised. Well, consensus-ism often does get used to safeguard the > status quo. > > If anybody is in fact ready to convey the statement to Rousseff, our > organisation's intention is still to go ahead with it. Hopefully IGC would > sign it, but if not, those who want to send it can do so. > > Co-coordinators: Is is time to check rough consensus on the shorter > version or not yet? > > parminder > > On Saturday 12 October 2013 10:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hello, > > > >> Firstly, we can take the usual time for seeking consensus. Just not >> postpone to another time... Secondly, I have not clearly heard, or any rate >> understood, the concerns. >> >> well I think that some people like Anriette , Anja , already expressed > scepticism and asked at least to have the discuss in Bali and so waiting > before sending the letter . I also didn't get till now what is the concrete > outcome of sending the letter > > Lets be clear what we are doing at present - Just welcoming an >> initiative that by all means looks like a serious outcome oriented or at >> least outcome seeking one, and saying that we want to be there right away >> driving it along with others.... What is wrong with it. The potential >> benefit is clear - we try to get a bit tri - lateral about this >> initiative.... Any other time will be too late.... And as I said I dont see >> the downside.... >> > > for me it seems more interpretation or wishes of we may want to happen > instead of having clear proofs or indications or benefits. and honestly I > don't buy those arguments that we should hurry and don't miss the > opportunity .any action we will take we have to bare the consequence later. > >> >> I want to be sure if I got you message correctly. >> I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am still not >> convinced and I want to highlight that any action we take, will have impact >> soon or later and can backfire. I don't think that you would disagree >> with more strategical approach. >> >> >> You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is >> good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I havent >> been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any political act >> carries risk. >> >> > I saw people talking about being opportunistic and pragmatic,well I will > take the cynical standpoint and remind that we are dealing with > politicians(even for the ICANN CEO), they will of course welcome any letter > support and like it. but what what will happen if we found the initiative > is going in totally different direction? are we going to send another > letter? > do you really think they will care about it? probably no and maybe they > will keep referring to the first letter because it support them and their > narrative. > why not investigating first and getting more details about what they have > in mind before hurrying? > should we jump there because one public statement?how can we make > strategical decision with such few details? > idem for people talking about benefit and opportunity to be part of the > initiative but didn't give any clarification how that will happen. kind of > shot first and then wait and see? > > anyway, I expressed my concern about sending letter to support > initiative yet to be defined, that we don't have so much details about and > without consensus on strategy that we have follow. > > Best, > > Rafik > > Regards, parminder >> >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/10/11 parminder >> >>> It is here >>> >>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 >>> >>> Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an ominbus document >>> of demands. At this stage we need a clear, crisp and strong letter, of a >>> few sentences, that Brazilian President or some top guy would actually >>> read, and not get confusing messages. I am not saying we should not say >>> whatever we definitively want to say - but be clear and short, that is all. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are developing here? >>> can you please clarify? >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2013/10/11 parminder >>> >>>> >>>> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is strategically of >>>> essense, some of us would keep working on a posible text over today and try >>>> to present something to IGC and BB by the end of the day.... We do very >>>> much hope IGC and BB can sign on it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we >>>> would open it to organisations and people who want to sign it (sorry, this >>>> is a practice I normally do not like so much, but I dont think it is ok >>>> that we can produce a statement to critique a UN process is just no time, >>>> with all kind of ambiguous languages, and on such an important - potential >>>> game changer - initiative from a developing country, a paralysis seems to >>>> be setting in)... >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is *a tide* in the *affairs >>>> of men*. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune"... >>>> >>>> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have to seize it.... >>>> President Rousseff was made, what would have perhaps been, somewhat a >>>> regular kind of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even announced >>>> the like month etc.. That is what gave it such a sudden high prominence, >>>> and people are celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays its cards >>>> well, Brazil have now got an edge.... which it can use to further its >>>> interest... >>>> >>>> Civil society also is supposed to be representing some interests - real >>>> interests of real people, who are most marginalised, and we have to take >>>> our own responsibility seriously . We cannot be eternally paralysed, which >>>> hurts these interests. If there are real differences of views, well, that >>>> counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch attitude would do us no >>>> good... >>>> >>>> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks we run and what gains >>>> we can make... And others must also contribute what they think are risks >>>> or advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, tells talk more, do >>>> face to face and all,,,, Such stuff I think, just my own view, is not the >>>> appropriate response. >>>> >>>> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's behalf tries to cosy up to >>>> the Brazilians (perhaps in anticipation of the new proposal for >>>> democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil will soon present - BTW, >>>> the day of the annual discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is 22nd >>>> Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real dialogue to see what needs to be >>>> changed about the global governance of the Internet. Rousseff immediately >>>> seizes the initiative, and even declares a possible timeline, just like >>>> that, off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is all that has >>>> happened, and that is all anyone knows has happened. There is nothing >>>> hidden that civil society may suddenly become complicit to if they support >>>> this proposal. >>>> >>>> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >>>> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what needs to change in >>>> global governance of the Internet should take place with some urgency, >>>> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open and not a hidden >>>> manner, >>>> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the initiative comes from one of >>>> the key developing nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - and >>>> ICANN or the technical community - seen as the main symbol and defender of >>>> status quo,and that >>>> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in the middle of all >>>> action, as the dialogue shapes and takes place... >>>> >>>> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything sinister about the proposed >>>> meeting surfaces at any later time we can as publicly withdraw our support, >>>> saying this is not at all what we bargained for) >>>> >>>> So either people here agree to the above, and we can write a statement, >>>> or they dont... This is the time to do the statement, when people are still >>>> wondering what kind of initiative it really is, and with what implications. >>>> Throw in our hat - and well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral >>>> from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN tech community) We may >>>> not succeed, but we must try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would >>>> already be too solidified in fact, or in people's mind for civil society >>>> support to have this kind of impact.... >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more information emerges. >>>> We can draft a letter which is more meaningful when we have a better idea >>>> of the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely attendees, and possible >>>> processes for the conference. It’s quite likely more information will >>>> emerge in the next week or so, therefore I think we should discuss at Bali >>>> and before then try to find out a little more. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> *From:* Deborah Brown >>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >>>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >>>> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, but I'm a bit concerned >>>> that we are rushing unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of us >>>> travel and are otherwise overstretched. I wonder if it might make more >>>> sense to continue this discussion online and take advantage of the >>>> in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us attending, to develop a CS >>>> agenda. Also, as others have pointed out, we know so little about the >>>> initiative at this point. >>>> >>>> The draft text (available here: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) >>>> does not seem to capture the cautious optimism that a number of people have >>>> expressed. I also have concerns about providing our "strongest endorsement" >>>> of the Marco Civil process, when that process is not yet complete. Of >>>> course the text of the letter could change dramatically in just a few hours >>>> ;) >>>> >>>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does imply a follow on >>>> communication with more concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more >>>> effective to streamline our communication to the Brazilian president and >>>> head of ICANN. >>>> >>>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both "striking while the iron is >>>> hot" and a more cautious approach. But given the factors I mentioned above, >>>> I would support taking some extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm >>>> looking forward to hearing others' ideas and continuing the discussion >>>> around this important development. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. I do believe that if any support there is, from the civil >>>>> society, it is support for an IDEA that "appears" more open and inclusive >>>>> that the current IGF >>>>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter that may be in any way >>>>> understood as "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's push". >>>>> 3. A short letter informing that global Civil Society that are >>>>> working on, concerned about and/or interested in IG and Internet issues >>>>> intend to play key roles in the summit. >>>>> 4. I believe we should communicate key values we plan to pursue in >>>>> the summit >>>>> 5. Underline the central idea of multistakeholder participation >>>>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions about the diverse roles >>>>> that CS can play and that some time in Bali will be dedicated to the issue >>>>> during the BB meeting in Bali. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be discussing the MS >>>>> Selection processes, and I do hope, personally that we can use that >>>>> opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder of the WS is on >>>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>>>> >>>>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but will be back online and >>>>> I'm happy to contribute language if any text begins to surface. In case I >>>>> do not, here are my ideas: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is supporting, which is >>>>> the idea, and not the institutions >>>>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness to engage >>>>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on the Multistakeholder >>>>> principle >>>>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and are ongoing >>>>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore concrete engagement proposals >>>>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if available, to help us scope >>>>> the idea itself. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nnenna >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear people, >>>>>> >>>>>> For the level of information I have (which is basically: Brazil and >>>>>> ICANN have proposed to host a Summit on Internet after April - >>>>>> coincidentally or right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik and before the >>>>>> presidential elections period), I don't feel comfortable about writing a >>>>>> letter congratulating for something I dont really know what it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion to start working on our >>>>>> agenda online and, with a potential to be much richer, during our several >>>>>> meetings in Bali. (what do we want from all this besides participating in >>>>>> the Summit??) >>>>>> >>>>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to understand and discuss >>>>>> this with the Brazilian government and Brazilian colleagues from civil >>>>>> society or other sectors. And see what is the final draft of Marco Civil >>>>>> that the government will bring to our table very soon (if it truly endorses >>>>>> all the principles she has mentioned at the UNGA). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or over cautious position, but >>>>>> I really need more inputs to see the big picture. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the best >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael gurstein >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> M >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. >>>>>>> Afonso >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>>>>> To: McTim >>>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Lee W >>>>>>> McKnight; Rafik >>>>>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; NCSG List >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear compa McT, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe you will not change your logical >>>>>>> view... >>>>>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of people in all sectors who feel >>>>>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of Brazil and its concrete >>>>>>> proposals to >>>>>>> finally move on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes the motivation -- Rousseff's >>>>>>> statement >>>>>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the basic principles most of civil >>>>>>> society >>>>>>> defends (which she has repeated several times in her radio program >>>>>>> and her >>>>>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal to build a planetary framework of >>>>>>> rights. This did not come out of the blue, from a meeting of IP >>>>>>> addressers >>>>>>> in a wonderful city called Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just >>>>>>> dropped by the >>>>>>> presidential door in Brasilia, knocked and entered to sell that >>>>>>> proposal? :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand that this is not a proposal for >>>>>>> yet >>>>>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition of the UN chatting space >>>>>>> called IGF, >>>>>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very clear. It is a major achievement >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> that motivation brought Icann to colead this effort jointly with BR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All the more so because, as you know, there are strong sectors >>>>>>> within the >>>>>>> government who would love to bring the root-zone to the purview of >>>>>>> the ITU, >>>>>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the pluriparticipative model of >>>>>>> governance >>>>>>> we defend, and who are basically associated with the transnational >>>>>>> telecom >>>>>>> oligopoly which controls the main networks in BR. >>>>>>> Dilma is courageously up against a huge wall here, to defend those >>>>>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and emerging from the meeting with >>>>>>> thar >>>>>>> proposal was a major political milestone for her in those internal >>>>>>> disputes >>>>>>> as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [] fraterno >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>>>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff has accepted our invitation >>>>>>> that we >>>>>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Carlos A. Afonso >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the video a few times more... :) >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> --c.a. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, michael gurstein < >>>>>>> gurstein at gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical everyone.. I may be wrong but >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although hats off to Fadi for getting >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> But I would be extremely surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is >>>>>>> going >>>>>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in April next year to discuss names >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is that she is by-passing the quite >>>>>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>>>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" crusade and the status quo which >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> >>>> was intended to cast into concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching the video again several times >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>>>>> >>> spearheading this. In other words the idea of the Summit comes >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Senior Policy Analyst >>>> Access | accessnow.org >>>> rightscon.org >>>> >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Oct 13 02:30:41 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 08:30:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL RESULTS Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: <20131012165529.5e9192e5@swan.bollow.ch> References: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> <20131012165529.5e9192e5@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20131013083041.0a6f1d05@quill> [With IGC Coordinator hat on] Dear all Now that the deadline of the consensus call has passed, it is time to announce the results. With regard to the first part, this is easy: There was no opposition at all to the proposed change of base document for the decision-making process. So I hereby declare that part of the consensus call to have passed. With regard to the second part, the situation is unfortunately a bit more complicated: While there were no formally valid consensus call objections, opposition has been voiced in the decision-making process thread, informally, in particular against one aspect of the draft letter, namely that it directly addresses only the government of Brazil and the country's president, and not also “equally” Fadi Chehadé. I hereby accept the opposition voiced by Avri and McTim as *possibly* having been meant in the sense of consensus call objections. Avri and McTim, please indicate ASAP whether your opposition against this aspect was intended as consensus call objections, and if yes, please provide a specific proposal for how to reword the top part of the draft letter to change the “choice of addressee(s)” aspect in a way that would be acceptable from your perspective. Please provide this response by 7pm UTC Oct 13, 2013 at the latest. If at least one of Avri and McTim sustains the opposition that has been expressed by means of stating that it was meant in the sense of a consensus call objection, and by providing a specific corresponding change request, I will issue a new specific consensus call for that change request. That consensus call would be very narrow in scope: It would not re-open any other aspect of the draft letter. If neither Avri nor McTim proceeds as described above, I will declare part 2 of the orginial consensus call to have passed. Greetings, Norbert Am Sat, 12 Oct 2013 16:55:29 +0200 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > [MG>] As per the various discussions, comments, suggestions could I > > now formally propose the following shorter text to replace the draft > > text currently under consideration > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Thanks Michael! > > I was getting a bit uneasy procedurally as it was not quite clear how > the text that consensus was apparently developing around would be > related to the formal IGC decision-making process that had been > initiated as being based on a different text (the one taken from what > was at that time the status of the etherpad). > > On the basis of this proposal, I hereby issue the following two-part > consensus call: > > 1) Do we have consensus on using the text that Michael posted as the > basis for going forward? Any objections to this part should please > state explicitly something like "I object to part 1 of the consensus > call" and give a justification, i.e. an explanation of why for some > specific reason this text is worse than the original draft that came > from the etherpad. > > 2) Do we have consensus on accepting this text as-is without further > changes? Any objections to this part should please state explicitly > something like "I object to part 2 of the consensus call", and make an > explicit change request (i.e. you'd make an explicit proposal with new > text and a clear indication of where it would go, and/or what should > be deleted) and justification (i.e. and explanation why this change > is in your view necessary). > > Please post any objections to either part 1 or part 2 by Sunday Oct > 13 6am UTC. > > Silence will be interpreted as no-objection. Explicit statements of > support will not influence this stage of the process materially, but > are nevertheless very welcome! > > A full copy of the concerned proposed text follows. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the > > Brazilian government, > > > > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from > > around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support > > for the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, > > along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > (ICANN), to “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” > > and to restore trust in the Internet as the foundation of our global > > information societies. > > > > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the > > future development of the Internet in the global public interest and > > for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. > > > > Civil society offers to fully participate in this undertaking as an > > equal partner, whose various processes we believe should be open and > > inclusive. Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society > > partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, > > and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current > > initiative. > > > > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to > > contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete > > proposals. We also look forward to carrying on a dialogue on this > > initiative at the upcoming Bali IGF. > > > > Sincerely, > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Oct 13 02:43:50 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:13:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> Dear Anja On Sunday 13 October 2013 11:22 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > Thanks for laying out in such detail how you see this debate. This is > very helpful to better understand your position. > > It also helps me to clarify the Internet Democracy Project position, > as we find ourselves in neither of the two groups you describe. We do > believe that the current unequal distribution of power in global > Internet governance is a major problem and that the proposed meeting > is a significant step in efforts to address this. We also believe, > however, that the solution to this problem does not only lie in an > equal and just redistribution among states, but also, and crucially, > in the strengthening of civil society participation. Achieving this > will not be reached by simply demanding the possibility of civil > society participation again and again. We believe it is far more > forceful to start participating already by making concrete proposals. I can understand that you are not convinced by the logic, but the above is not a very accurate description of our intention or strategy. Calling for (1) a central role at this point in shaping the emerging initiative, is at a completely different level from (2) making concrete proposals. They are clearly two different things. And you know IT for Change have never shied away from making concrete proposals, including in the recent discussions here on this list after the Montevideo statement, but did not find many participants who want concrete proposals now jumping into that discussion and seeking concrete outcomes/ proposals. How much faith all of us have to entirely put into that few hours that some civil society members would be in that small closed room of the Bali BestBits meeting! Coming back to putting in the stake for, in the best scenario, being a kind of an organising partner - I see this as very very different from making concrete proposals to that process. I cant see how these two very different things - though with a common intention - can be essentially conflated. Indeed I can see a lot of sense in that when we initially seek partnership in shaping an initiative, we dont also throw in all our concrete proposals into that same demand...... I dont consider it strategic at all, unless of course we have a strong basic ab initio distrust of the concerned process/ initiative . > > It is for this reason (and because we believe letters in short > succession do not add value, especially if they have nothing > substantially new to add) Not true. This letter has little to do with the earlier letter that we sent after Rousseff's UN speech. This letter specifically welcomes an initiative that has taken the global IG world by a good amount of surprise, and further specifically seeks a partnership role for civil society going forward with this initiative. How can you say this letter has nothing new to add? > that we proposed to wait until the Best Bits meeting next weekend. IGC is IGC and BestBits is BestBits. I dont think it is proper to put one process hostage to another, or to put any hierarchy ... BTW, there may not be a good basis to suppose that IGC would necessarily sign a statement just becuase those who gather for that meeting in Bali agree to it. In any case, if concrete proposals are involved, why cant we start on them here, in this space..... Lets at least see what kind of proposals are we talking about here. As I said, arent we putting some extra ordinary trust and expectation on these few hours in Bali. best parminder > This may be a different perspective than yours, but it certainly isn't > any less legitimate or valid in its commitment to a more just system > of global Internet governance or an information society for all. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > On 12 October 2013 12:01, parminder > wrote: > > Rafik > > I did argue the potential benefits at length. At the same time, > logic of cautious wait may also appears as sound. Finally, it is > ones politics - and the extent of ones disenchantment with the > status quo of power in global IG. As for those who are rather > disenchanted, this is a major potential opening for a disruptive > impact, something that has come after a long time, due to certain > historical matching of political configurations - a prime element > of which is the near universal global outrage following Snowden > revelations. And such openings dont come everyday. To those, like > for instance us, for whom there is major issue today about who has > power and who hasnt in global IG, and is marginalised, it is > difficult to let go such a prime opportunity without making the > best attempt to leverage it. That is the simple fact here. > > To others, there may be less threat in status quo and more in the > possible/ likely new configurations. Well, that is how it is > then... But we should understand and acknowledge the politics that > lies behind it.. It is not some simple technical difference of > appreciating whether entrepreneurial political opportunism is > better or conservative caution is more well-advised. Well, > consensus-ism often does get used to safeguard the status quo. > > If anybody is in fact ready to convey the statement to Rousseff, > our organisation's intention is still to go ahead with it. > Hopefully IGC would sign it, but if not, those who want to send it > can do so. > > Co-coordinators: Is is time to check rough consensus on the > shorter version or not yet? > > parminder > > On Saturday 12 October 2013 10:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Firstly, we can take the usual time for seeking consensus. >> Just not postpone to another time... Secondly, I have not >> clearly heard, or any rate understood, the concerns. >> >> well I think that some people like Anriette , Anja , already >> expressed scepticism and asked at least to have the discuss in >> Bali and so waiting before sending the letter . I also didn't get >> till now what is the concrete outcome of sending the letter >> >> Lets be clear what we are doing at present - Just welcoming >> an initiative that by all means looks like a serious outcome >> oriented or at least outcome seeking one, and saying that we >> want to be there right away driving it along with others.... >> What is wrong with it. The potential benefit is clear - we >> try to get a bit tri - lateral about this initiative.... Any >> other time will be too late.... And as I said I dont see the >> downside.... >> >> >> for me it seems more interpretation or wishes of we may want to >> happen instead of having clear proofs or indications or benefits. >> and honestly I don't buy those arguments that we should hurry >> and don't miss the opportunity .any action we will take we have >> to bare the consequence later. >> >> >>> I want to be sure if I got you message correctly. >>> I am still cautious with hurrying to write letter , I am >>> still not convinced and I want to highlight that any action >>> we take, will have impact soon or later and can backfire. >>> I don't think that you would disagree with more strategical >>> approach. >> >> You are just making a general statement that caution and >> foresight is good - and with such a statement who can >> disagree.... But here I havent been told the risk - and >> beyond a point, just about any political act carries risk. >> >> >> I saw people talking about being opportunistic and pragmatic,well >> I will take the cynical standpoint and remind that we are dealing >> with politicians(even for the ICANN CEO), they will of course >> welcome any letter support and like it. but what what will happen >> if we found the initiative is going in totally different >> direction? are we going to send another letter? >> do you really think they will care about it? probably no and >> maybe they will keep referring to the first letter because it >> support them and their narrative. >> why not investigating first and getting more details about what >> they have in mind before hurrying? >> should we jump there because one public statement?how can we make >> strategical decision with such few details? >> idem for people talking about benefit and opportunity to be part >> of the initiative but didn't give any clarification how that will >> happen. kind of shot first and then wait and see? >> >> anyway, I expressed my concern about sending letter to support >> initiative yet to be defined, that we don't have so much details >> about and without consensus on strategy that we have follow. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> Regards, parminder >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2013/10/11 parminder >> > >>> >>> It is here >>> >>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014 >>> >>> Just a word of caution - we dont want to make this an >>> ominbus document of demands. At this stage we need a >>> clear, crisp and strong letter, of a few sentences, that >>> Brazilian President or some top guy would actually read, >>> and not get confusing messages. I am not saying we >>> should not say whatever we definitively want to say - >>> but be clear and short, that is all. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi Parminder, >>>> >>>> sorry I am not really getting the proposal you are >>>> developing here? can you please clarify? >>>> >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/10/11 parminder >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Since as argued below, in our judgement, time is >>>> strategically of essense, some of us would keep >>>> working on a posible text over today and try to >>>> present something to IGC and BB by the end of the >>>> day.... We do very much hope IGC and BB can sign on >>>> it by consensus, but it doesnt happen we would open >>>> it to organisations and people who want to sign it >>>> (sorry, this is a practice I normally do not like >>>> so much, but I dont think it is ok that we can >>>> produce a statement to critique a UN process is >>>> just no time, with all kind of ambiguous languages, >>>> and on such an important - potential game changer - >>>> initiative from a developing country, a paralysis >>>> seems to be setting in)... >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 11:02 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>> Well let then that be as it has to be... "There is >>>>> /a tide/ in the /affairs of men/. Which, taken at >>>>> the flood, leads on to fortune"... >>>>> >>>>> Leadership doesnt come searching for you, you have >>>>> to seize it.... President Rousseff was made, what >>>>> would have perhaps been, somewhat a regular kind >>>>> of offer. She seized it with both her hands, even >>>>> announced the like month etc.. That is what gave >>>>> it such a sudden high prominence, and people are >>>>> celebrating Rousseff, and somewhere, if it plays >>>>> its cards well, Brazil have now got an edge.... >>>>> which it can use to further its interest... >>>>> >>>>> Civil society also is supposed to be representing >>>>> some interests - real interests of real people, >>>>> who are most marginalised, and we have to take our >>>>> own responsibility seriously . We cannot be >>>>> eternally paralysed, which hurts these interests. >>>>> If there are real differences of views, well, that >>>>> counts.... But a permanent simple wait-and-watch >>>>> attitude would do us no good... >>>>> >>>>> Lets analyse what we have here.... Or what risks >>>>> we run and what gains we can make... And others >>>>> must also contribute what they think are risks or >>>>> advantages.... merely saying we are not sure yet, >>>>> tells talk more, do face to face and all,,,, Such >>>>> stuff I think, just my own view, is not the >>>>> appropriate response. >>>>> >>>>> ICANN, either on its own or tech community's >>>>> behalf tries to cosy up to the Brazilians (perhaps >>>>> in anticipation of the new proposal for >>>>> democratising global IG that Rousseff said Brazil >>>>> will soon present - BTW, the day of the annual >>>>> discussion on WSIS and IG issues in the UN GA is >>>>> 22nd Oct, but whatever...) . It proposes a real >>>>> dialogue to see what needs to be changed about the >>>>> global governance of the Internet. Rousseff >>>>> immediately seizes the initiative, and even >>>>> declares a possible timeline, just like that, >>>>> off-hand.... That is leadership material. That is >>>>> all that has happened, and that is all anyone >>>>> knows has happened. There is nothing hidden that >>>>> civil society may suddenly become complicit to if >>>>> they support this proposal. >>>>> >>>>> In supporting it, we would only be saying - >>>>> (1) yes, we agree that 'a real dialogue' on what >>>>> needs to change in global governance of the >>>>> Internet should take place with some urgency, >>>>> (2) such a dialogue should take place in an open >>>>> and not a hidden manner, >>>>> (3) it is certainly encouraging that the >>>>> initiative comes from one of the key developing >>>>> nations - the main votaries of a 'real change' - >>>>> and ICANN or the technical community - seen as the >>>>> main symbol and defender of status quo,and that >>>>> (4) we want civil society to be equally there in >>>>> the middle of all action, as the dialogue shapes >>>>> and takes place... >>>>> >>>>> Nothing more and nothing less. (If anything >>>>> sinister about the proposed meeting surfaces at >>>>> any later time we can as publicly withdraw our >>>>> support, saying this is not at all what we >>>>> bargained for) >>>>> >>>>> So either people here agree to the above, and we >>>>> can write a statement, or they dont... This is the >>>>> time to do the statement, when people are still >>>>> wondering what kind of initiative it really is, >>>>> and with what implications. Throw in our hat - and >>>>> well, kind of make this thing somewhat trilateral >>>>> from its current bi-lateral status (Brazil - ICANN >>>>> tech community) We may not succeed, but we must >>>>> try. .... In a few weeks, the initiative would >>>>> already be too solidified in fact, or in people's >>>>> mind for civil society support to have this kind >>>>> of impact.... >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday 11 October 2013 05:56 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>> I agree with Deborah – lets wait till a bit more >>>>>> information emerges. We can draft a letter which >>>>>> is more meaningful when we have a better idea of >>>>>> the scope, objectives, possible outcomes, likely >>>>>> attendees, and possible processes for the >>>>>> conference. It’s quite likely more information >>>>>> will emerge in the next week or so, therefore I >>>>>> think we should discuss at Bali and before then >>>>>> try to find out a little more. >>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>>> *From:* Deborah Brown >>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 10:35 AM >>>>>> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] >>>>>> Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event >>>>>> on Internet governance in 2014 >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> I see the advantage of engaging early on this, >>>>>> but I'm a bit concerned that we are rushing >>>>>> unnecessarily to finalize a letter before many of >>>>>> us travel and are otherwise overstretched. I >>>>>> wonder if it might make more sense to continue >>>>>> this discussion online and take advantage of the >>>>>> in-person meetings in Bali, for those of us >>>>>> attending, to develop a CS agenda. Also, as >>>>>> others have pointed out, we know so little about >>>>>> the initiative at this point. >>>>>> The draft text (available here: >>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/Brazil2014) does not >>>>>> seem to capture the cautious optimism that a >>>>>> number of people have expressed. I also have >>>>>> concerns about providing our "strongest >>>>>> endorsement" of the Marco Civil process, when >>>>>> that process is not yet complete. Of course the >>>>>> text of the letter could change dramatically in >>>>>> just a few hours ;) >>>>>> I find Nnenna's approach to be sound, but it does >>>>>> imply a follow on communication with more >>>>>> concrete proposals. I wonder if it might be more >>>>>> effective to streamline our communication to the >>>>>> Brazilian president and head of ICANN. >>>>>> To sum up, I see clear advantages to both >>>>>> "striking while the iron is hot" and a more >>>>>> cautious approach. But given the factors I >>>>>> mentioned above, I would support taking some >>>>>> extra time if we need it. In any case, I'm >>>>>> looking forward to hearing others' ideas and >>>>>> continuing the discussion around this important >>>>>> development. >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. I do believe that if any support there >>>>>> is, from the civil society, it is support >>>>>> for an IDEA that "appears" more open and >>>>>> inclusive that the current IGF >>>>>> 2. So I am cautious about writing a letter >>>>>> that may be in any way understood as >>>>>> "Civil Society lauds Dilma and ICANN's >>>>>> push". >>>>>> 3. A short letter informing that global >>>>>> Civil Society that are working on, >>>>>> concerned about and/or interested in IG >>>>>> and Internet issues intend to play key >>>>>> roles in the summit. >>>>>> 4. I believe we should communicate key >>>>>> values we plan to pursue in the summit >>>>>> 5. Underline the central idea of >>>>>> multistakeholder participation >>>>>> 6. Say that we are beginnning discussions >>>>>> about the diverse roles that CS can play >>>>>> and that some time in Bali will be >>>>>> dedicated to the issue during the BB >>>>>> meeting in Bali. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we recall, workshop 127 in Bali will be >>>>>> discussing the MS Selection processes, and I >>>>>> do hope, personally that we can use that >>>>>> opportunity to sharpen the focus. A reminder >>>>>> of the WS is on >>>>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >>>>>> >>>>>> I am traveling in unconnected rural areas but >>>>>> will be back online and I'm happy to >>>>>> contribute language if any text begins to >>>>>> surface. In case I do not, here are my ideas: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Say what exactly it is the global CS is >>>>>> supporting, which is the idea, and not >>>>>> the institutions >>>>>> 2. Make a clear statement on our willingness >>>>>> to engage >>>>>> 3. Recall that our engagement is based on >>>>>> the Multistakeholder principle >>>>>> 4. Inform that discussions have started and >>>>>> are ongoing >>>>>> 5. Say we will be coming up with ore >>>>>> concrete engagement proposals >>>>>> 6. Requesto have fundamental info, if >>>>>> available, to help us scope the idea itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Joana Varon >>>>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear people, >>>>>> >>>>>> For the level of information I have >>>>>> (which is basically: Brazil and ICANN >>>>>> have proposed to host a Summit on >>>>>> Internet after April - coincidentally or >>>>>> right after the meeting on Sharm el Sheik >>>>>> and before the presidential elections >>>>>> period), I don't feel comfortable about >>>>>> writing a letter congratulating for >>>>>> something I dont really know what it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I do truly support Anja's suggestion >>>>>> to start working on our agenda online >>>>>> and, with a potential to be much richer, >>>>>> during our several meetings in Bali. >>>>>> (what do we want from all this besides >>>>>> participating in the Summit??) >>>>>> >>>>>> In the meanwhile, I rather take breath to >>>>>> understand and discuss this with the >>>>>> Brazilian government and Brazilian >>>>>> colleagues from civil society or other >>>>>> sectors. And see what is the final draft >>>>>> of Marco Civil that the government will >>>>>> bring to our table very soon (if it truly >>>>>> endorses all the principles she has >>>>>> mentioned at the UNGA). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sorry if it's a bit of a skeptic or >>>>>> over cautious position, but I really need >>>>>> more inputs to see the big picture. >>>>>> All the best >>>>>> >>>>>> joana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, michael >>>>>> gurstein >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> M >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: >>>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> >>>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> ] >>>>>> On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:12 AM >>>>>> To: McTim >>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> ; >>>>>> michael gurstein; Lee W McKnight; Rafik >>>>>> Dammak; Joana Varon; >>>>>> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> >,; >>>>>> NCSG List >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: >>>>>> [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >>>>>> will >>>>>> host world event on Internet >>>>>> governance in 2014 >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear compa McT, >>>>>> >>>>>> You being a rigorous techie, maybe >>>>>> you will not change your logical view... >>>>>> :) And I understand there is a lot of >>>>>> people in all sectors who feel >>>>>> disturbed by the emerging presence of >>>>>> Brazil and its concrete proposals to >>>>>> finally move on. >>>>>> >>>>>> At the very beginning Fadi describes >>>>>> the motivation -- Rousseff's statement >>>>>> at the UN, her clear adherence to the >>>>>> basic principles most of civil society >>>>>> defends (which she has repeated >>>>>> several times in her radio program >>>>>> and her >>>>>> twitter @dilmabr), and her proposal >>>>>> to build a planetary framework of >>>>>> rights. This did not come out of the >>>>>> blue, from a meeting of IP addressers >>>>>> in a wonderful city called >>>>>> Montevideo. Do you think Fadi just >>>>>> dropped by the >>>>>> presidential door in Brasilia, >>>>>> knocked and entered to sell that >>>>>> proposal? :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, it is relevant to understand >>>>>> that this is not a proposal for yet >>>>>> another Icann meeting, or a reedition >>>>>> of the UN chatting space called IGF, >>>>>> as both Dilma and Fadi made it very >>>>>> clear. It is a major achievement that >>>>>> that motivation brought Icann to >>>>>> colead this effort jointly with BR. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the more so because, as you know, >>>>>> there are strong sectors within the >>>>>> government who would love to bring >>>>>> the root-zone to the purview of the ITU, >>>>>> who hate Icann, who do not like the >>>>>> pluriparticipative model of governance >>>>>> we defend, and who are basically >>>>>> associated with the transnational telecom >>>>>> oligopoly which controls the main >>>>>> networks in BR. >>>>>> Dilma is courageously up against a >>>>>> huge wall here, to defend those >>>>>> principles, and receiving Fadi and >>>>>> emerging from the meeting with thar >>>>>> proposal was a major political >>>>>> milestone for her in those internal >>>>>> disputes >>>>>> as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> [] fraterno >>>>>> >>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/10/2013 10:14 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>>> > At 55 seconds in, Fadi says: >>>>>> > "Her Excellency President Rousseff >>>>>> has accepted our invitation that we >>>>>> > hold next year a Global Summit" >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Seem fairly clear to me. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, >>>>>> Carlos A. Afonso >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >> McT, maybe you should watch the >>>>>> video a few times more... :) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> --c.a. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On 10/10/2013 09:57 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, >>>>>> michael gurstein >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> Why so pessimistic and cynical >>>>>> everyone.. I may be wrong but this >>>>>> >>>> isn't just about ICANN, although >>>>>> hats off to Fadi for getting this >>>>>> >>>> going and putting that into play. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I'm not pessimistic or cynical. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> But I would be extremely >>>>>> surprised if the Pres. of Brazil is going >>>>>> >>>> to invite the world to Rio in >>>>>> April next year to discuss names and >>>>>> >>>> numbers. Rather my reading is >>>>>> that she is by-passing the quite >>>>>> >>>> evident log-jam at the ITU, the >>>>>> frivolities of the IGF, the now >>>>>> >>>> discredited "Internet Freedom" >>>>>> crusade and the status quo which it >>>>>> >>>> was intended to cast into >>>>>> concrete errr. (non) rules and regs. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> It appears to me, after watching >>>>>> the video again several times that >>>>>> >>> it is ICANN (and I assume the >>>>>> rest of the Montevideoans) that are >>>>>> >>> spearheading this. In other >>>>>> words the idea of the Summit comes from >>>>>> >>> the T&A folks, not Brasilia. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>>>> @joana_varon >>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Deborah Brown >>>>>> Senior Policy Analyst >>>>>> Access | accessnow.org >>>>>> rightscon.org >>>>>> >>>>>> @deblebrown >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Oct 13 02:51:38 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:21:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Choice of addressee(s) (was Re: CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text) In-Reply-To: References: <20131012194010.40243847@quill> <586A1998-6E50-4637-BDA4-BA886A79D707@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <525A42FA.6000108@itforchange.net> I once again checked all media coverage. Everywhere I only see something to the effect that Brazil will organise an international meeting on IG - wherever the initial idea or proposal may have come from. In the circumstances it would only be proper to write to whoever everyone is saying is organising the event. parminder On Sunday 13 October 2013 12:22 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I wasn't thinking of a carbon copy being sent to him. I was speaking about addressing it to the pair of them equally as the senior members of their respective stakeholder groups. > > Ie. To the venerable ... and the most excellent ... (or whatever the appropriate honorifics might be for this occasion). I do not have a view as to which protocol would require putting first in the list of honorifics. > > avri > > On 12 Oct 2013, at 13:58, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> FWIW: I would CC Fadi. It cannot hurt, and might help. >> >> On 12 Oct 2013, at 19:40, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> If something is sent, shouldn't it be address to both of the leaders >>>> who came out together for this. Don't we lessen the multi stakeholder >>>> push while petitioning for CS to be included? Shouldn't we be >>>> addressing our thoughts to both of them. >>>> >>>> On sending something at all: while I believe it would be better to >>>> wait until we have something contentful to write, I am not so against >>>> sending boilerplate that I would object to IGC adding its signature >>>> to an appropriately addressed note. >>> I don't see anything inappropriate about addressing this note to the >>> Brazilian government. >>> >>> If CS doesn't get included, it wouldn't be the fault of Fadi or of >>> anyone else at ICANN. ICANN is not in the habit of excluding >>> stakeholders, but governments have that habit. It would be the fault of >>> some government bureaucrat(s) either acting on (bad) habit, or acting >>> out of an unhealthy relationship with telecom companies that still have >>> a pre-Internet mindset, or acting of of such a pre-Internet telecom >>> mindset they may have themselves. >>> >>> So it is in my view quite appropriate to communicate to the person who >>> is able to solve this problem by simply telling her bureaucrats to work >>> with civil society. >>> >>> I don't like the idea of adding Fadi to the list of addressees for this >>> particular letter, because doing so would reduce the clarity about who >>> needs to take the necessary action to ensure the inclusion of civil >>> society. >>> >>> I do however agree on the point that there is an imbalance if we >>> express appreciation only for the Brazilian president and government >>> but not for the (at least in my view) at least equally significant >>> contribution of Fadi. >>> >>> How about addressing a separate note to Fadi which simply expresses >>> appreciation? >>> >>> If we want to take that route, it might be best to combine the >>> endorsements / sign-on process for both letters, making it a package >>> deal, i.e. each person or organization would either endorse both or >>> none of the two letters. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 13 02:52:18 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:52:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL RESULTS Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: <20131013083041.0a6f1d05@quill> References: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> <20131012165529.5e9192e5@swan.bollow.ch> <20131013083041.0a6f1d05@quill> Message-ID: The text of the letter is fine, I'm not sure of the purpose and value of sending it, but the text itself is fine. What's incorrect is the salutation. I'm no expert on protocol, but "Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the, Brazilian government..." no! Your Excellency might be correct, Madam President if following the U.S. style. But other representatives? Who are they (why are they there?) As others have said, from all we have seen about this initiative it is a joint proposal of Madam Rousseff and Mr. Chehadé. This mailing list and others have been dominated this past few days by a thread "Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014". The letter should be addressed to them both. Madam Rousseff obviously first. Adam On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >>> Brazilian government, -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Oct 13 02:58:59 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 08:58:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> Parminder wrote: > On Sunday 13 October 2013 11:22 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > It is for this reason (and because we believe letters in short > > succession do not add value, especially if they have nothing > > substantially new to add) > > Not true. This letter has little to do with the earlier letter that > we sent after Rousseff's UN speech. This letter specifically welcomes > an initiative that has taken the global IG world by a good amount of > surprise, and further specifically seeks a partnership role for civil > society going forward with this initiative. How can you say this > letter has nothing new to add? In fact if she liked hearing from us by means of our previous letter, she might miss hearing from us if we're silent now. Many politicians appreciate praise. Also, in regard to the potential concern of whether this letter might be problematic through being similar but smaller in scope to a letter that BestBits might draft, which would also address the topic of substantive content: That kind of letter that we have been discussing for BestBits is not something that would be intended to result in an immediate action of the President of Brazil who certainly has many other pressing concerns on her mind. It is not realistic to expect her to start working personally on the details of substantive content for this conference. Regardless of whether that letter is formally addressed to the President or someone else, it will not be the President who would act on it. By contrast, the presently planned letter is directed at hopefully the President of Brazil issuing the simple order “work with civil society” to the people who will be in charge of the details. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Oct 13 03:05:03 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 09:05:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL RESULTS Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: References: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> <20131012165529.5e9192e5@swan.bollow.ch> <20131013083041.0a6f1d05@quill> Message-ID: <20131013090503.089a763d@quill> Maybe we can get input from someone from Brazil on this point? Drafting a formally correct salutation to appropriately address Madam Rousseff and Mr. Chehadé is totally outside my area of competence. Greetings, Norbert Am Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:52:18 +0900 schrieb Adam Peake : > The text of the letter is fine, I'm not sure of the purpose and value > of sending it, but the text itself is fine. > > What's incorrect is the salutation. I'm no expert on protocol, but > > "Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the, > Brazilian government..." no! > > Your Excellency might be correct, Madam President if following the > U.S. style. But other representatives? Who are they (why are they > there?) > > As others have said, from all we have seen about this initiative it > is a joint proposal of Madam Rousseff and Mr. Chehadé. This mailing > list and others have been dominated this past few days by a thread > "Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet > governance in 2014". The letter should be addressed to them both. > Madam Rousseff obviously first. > > Adam > > > > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >>> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of > >>> the Brazilian government, > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 04:08:12 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 09:08:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Does ICANN protect multistakeholderism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For me this has become the year when the issue of "veneered participation" (see Richard Heeks' 1999 paper http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/publications/wp/di/documents/di_wp04.pdf ) has loomed particularly large. The offer of and insistence on "participation" sounds more and more like the "bread and circuses" to keep the masses happy. For this reason I belong to the cautious wait and see group. Such a short time ago we learned that we have been comprehensively betrayed. Isn't caution one of the lessons of betrayal? Hoping that everyone within reach of the cyclone in India is safe. Deirdre On 13 October 2013 06:08, Anja Kovacs wrote: > It seems that some or not quite as convinced as Norbert is that it does > anymore: > > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/08/31/icanns-accountability-meltdown-a-four-part-series/ > > Which explains the discomfort of some on the list with a letter being sent > out before more details are available (though the lack of detail is not a > concern to me). > > Thanks to friends who are active in ICANN for drawing my attention to this > growing concern. > > Best, > Anja > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 04:13:29 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 09:13:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL RESULTS Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: <20131013090503.089a763d@quill> References: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> <20131012165529.5e9192e5@swan.bollow.ch> <20131013083041.0a6f1d05@quill> <20131013090503.089a763d@quill> Message-ID: I think I buy into Adam's points and observations. Thank you. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Oct 13, 2013 8:05 AM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > Maybe we can get input from someone from Brazil on this point? > > Drafting a formally correct salutation to appropriately address Madam > Rousseff and Mr. Chehadé is totally outside my area of competence. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > Am Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:52:18 +0900 > schrieb Adam Peake : > > > The text of the letter is fine, I'm not sure of the purpose and value > > of sending it, but the text itself is fine. > > > > What's incorrect is the salutation. I'm no expert on protocol, but > > > > "Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the, > > Brazilian government..." no! > > > > Your Excellency might be correct, Madam President if following the > > U.S. style. But other representatives? Who are they (why are they > > there?) > > > > As others have said, from all we have seen about this initiative it > > is a joint proposal of Madam Rousseff and Mr. Chehadé. This mailing > > list and others have been dominated this past few days by a thread > > "Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet > > governance in 2014". The letter should be addressed to them both. > > Madam Rousseff obviously first. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > >>> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of > > >>> the Brazilian government, > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Oct 13 04:47:26 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 10:47:26 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. References: <8EEB48B7-1172-4665-B56C-93FAC85FB82C@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi My understanding is that there are obviously two conferences in India (at the same day): One called CyFy (organised by the Observe Research Foundation) with high representation from governments (including US and Germany) and the Knowledge Summit (which is also of great interest). I was investigating the background of the CyFy. US is presented by Chris Painter from the DoS. Germany by the new Commissioner for International Cyberpolicy Dirk Brengelmann. Key Speaker here is Minister Sibal, who was in Baku and distanced himself very strongly from the CIRP proposal by making clear that India is for a free and open Internet, but has its own interest and can not accept a one sided political or economic dominance by one group of corproations or one government, a position which was shared by a lot of CS folks in the breakfest session in Baku. Does he speak for India as a whole? That is why I asked Parminder to help us to understand better the local situation in India. India is a key player and will have an important voice in the "New Internet Season Process". What I have observed in the last years is that individual governments speak more and more with different voices. One ministry says this, another one says something else, sometimes very conflicting with the position of the other ministry. This is confusing for non-governmental stakeholders who refer to "the governments of x or y has said this or that". In Germany, the Ministry of Justice has heavily critisized PRISM and calls for strong data protection, the Ministry of the Interior is rather silent and says that there is no problem. The Ministry of Economics represents Germany in the GAC and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has just reently nominated Mr. Brengelmann as the new leader to represent Germany in intergovernmental negotiations in this field. And more ministeries are involved (consumer protection, defence, economic development). And for the Chancellor, Internet Governance is sitll "unchartered territory" (which is true in a certain sense for many governments). However to charter this territory, it needs more than a "wait and see" approach. New ideas, which go beyond the classical "send it back to a governmental body", are needed. There is a need for National Multistakeholder IG Platforms (as in Brazil) and intergovernmental Internet negotiations has to be embedded into the aleready existing multistakeholder environment (called the IG Eco-System). I observe that this internal governmental differention, reflecting different interests of special governmental groups, since years. You can see this in particular in ICANN meetings where you ask yourself sometimes whether the individual GAC person speaks for the government as a whole or just for one ministry or pressure group in the government (law enforcement as an example by ignoring data commissioners). Last week in Washington I had a similar impression from the USG.It is uncelar whether there is "one US Internet policy". Is it done by the DOC? The DoS (and here is it Chris Painter or Sepulveda)? Or is it done by DHS and DoJ and General Alexander and Mr. Clapper? Has the White House a strong coordinator or do they play with different cards? And what congress os doing? Can they bring everything to a halt? US governments pays money to one group to make TOR safe and they pay money to another group to crack TOR? How far this "left hand does not know what the right hand is doing" is going? Similar things you can see in Brazil, in European States, but also in Russia and even in China. The so-called "London Process" which has arrived now in Seoul (just the weekend before Bali) with no clue where to go from there, is another example. I raise this issue because on Day 1 in Bali we have the Plenary on the role of governments in the MS Governance Model. As I can see we have here two problems: One is the missing consensus AMONG governments of the 193 UN member states and two is the missing consensus WITHIN single governments. CS should ask questions in Bali about the internal mechanisms within governments and who speaks on behalf of "one government" or "the governments". Insofar the ICANN/Roussoff initiative is of strategic importance and a step forward. There is a need that a government as a stakeholder needs to speak with one voice and this can be done only by the highest representative. A consequence could be to design any nee mechanism along those lines. A possible outcome from the proposed "Summit Meeting" next year in Brazil would be to work towards the launch of an "eG20". But such a body would have to include not only the 20 presidents of the G 20 nations but at least a similar highest level representation of the other stakeholder groups (probably 10 seats each for CS, PS and TC). The working methods of such a (eG20) could be similar to the UNCSTD WGs on IGF Improvement and Enhanced ooperation where every member had the same rights and was "equal" in making proposals, discussing language and adopting a final text. Such a multistakeholder IG body of 50 leaders needs a framework of guidelines and principles. Insofar the forthcoming sessions in Bali on principles will be of crucial importance. This is an opportunity to go beyond the re-cycling of the old positions and to come with innovative ideas how to use the "window of opportunity" of the "New Internet Season". Whatever will happen next year in Brazil (April will be in conflict with the High Level WSIS 10+), guidance should come from the IGF and CS has to bring all its brains, energy and constructive spirit to Indonesia to play a similar role to what CS did in the Geneva phase of WSIS in 2003. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Gesendet: So 13.10.2013 01:11 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; parminder at itforchange.net Betreff: Re: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. Not very many of the actual players. Expensive registration fees. This is a talk shop and networking event more than anything else and I don't expect substantial policy outcomes. --srs (iPad) On 13-Oct-2013, at 0:04, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: It's crystal clear that this Delhi Summit is all about security. While the meeting won't change the world overnight, the topic will be long lasting, and shall put State and Defense in the core of investment and decision making within national blueprints for a ruggedized society. Something similar to post-Hiroshima redesign of political strategies. Thanks USA for opening the Pandora's box. Louis - - - On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: http://www.assocham.org/docs/11th-Konwledge-Summit-CyberSecurityBrochure_13.pdf CIS India and ISOC are listed as supporting partners. I also see the council of Europe and ITU APT involved. Seems to be organized mostly by a national chamber of commerce along with various Indian ministries. --srs (iPad) On 12-Oct-2013, at 21:05, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Hi Parminder, do you have any information about the Cyberconference in New Dehli, October 14 - 15 under the leadership of Indian Minister Sibal? Is this Indians contribution to the "new Season"? Are you or IT for Change involved? There is a session on Multistakeholderism on Day 2 which speaks about the need to strengthen civil society impact. As you remember, we always argued that good Internet governance starts at home. Do you have something like the Brazilians in India (Marco Civil/cgi.br ?). Can you give us and this list some information? This would be certainly useful also to prepare the various principles sessions in Bali. Thanks. wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Oct 13 04:49:54 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 10:49:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text Message-ID: In alphabetic order Brazil comes first before ICANN. :-)) In diplomatic order the meeting host and the head of State has precedence over a non profit californian commerce. Since the meeting has been publicized a lot, it's time for Brazil to launch invitations. Louis - - - On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:19 AM, McTim wrote: > I agree with Avri, clearly it should be addressed to both (not just > cc: one party). > > I still haven't heard anything reality based to indicate why Brasil > should be mentioned first in the first para. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sun Oct 13 04:55:14 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:25:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Norbert and all, Thank you for your responses. As I think the same arguments are simply being repeated, I will drop out of this debate here. I do want to make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the consensus call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have expressed discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I think it would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. In addition, many of the arguments raised against it are strategic ones, not substantial, and one strategy does effectively undermine the other. In that sense it would be quite tragic if civil society doesn't manage to come to a compromise on this issue: we are effectively working against each other here. I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an alternative. If that could be a solution for all, we would be ok if a communication would be sent directly to bureaucrats in the Brazilian government, without public attention being drawn to that at this moment, to simply note our appreciation of the initiative at face value and our preliminary desire to participate, and to alert them to the fact that a note with more substantial comments will be sent in about a week's time when we have had the time to consider it in more detail - indeed following this up with a broader and more public initiative next week. In that way a flagpole could still be put in the ground. Thanks and best, Anja On 13 October 2013 12:28, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > > On Sunday 13 October 2013 11:22 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > It is for this reason (and because we believe letters in short > > > succession do not add value, especially if they have nothing > > > substantially new to add) > > > > Not true. This letter has little to do with the earlier letter that > > we sent after Rousseff's UN speech. This letter specifically welcomes > > an initiative that has taken the global IG world by a good amount of > > surprise, and further specifically seeks a partnership role for civil > > society going forward with this initiative. How can you say this > > letter has nothing new to add? > > In fact if she liked hearing from us by means of our previous letter, > she might miss hearing from us if we're silent now. Many politicians > appreciate praise. > > Also, in regard to the potential concern of whether this letter might > be problematic through being similar but smaller in scope to a letter > that BestBits might draft, which would also address the topic of > substantive content: That kind of letter that we have been discussing > for BestBits is not something that would be intended to result in an > immediate action of the President of Brazil who certainly has many > other pressing concerns on her mind. It is not realistic to expect her > to start working personally on the details of substantive content for > this conference. Regardless of whether that letter is formally addressed > to the President or someone else, it will not be the President who would > act on it. > > By contrast, the presently planned letter is directed at hopefully the > President of Brazil issuing the simple order “work with civil society” > to the people who will be in charge of the details. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Oct 13 05:15:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:45:40 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <8EEB48B7-1172-4665-B56C-93FAC85FB82C@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <141b1195b38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> He speaks for his ministry which is concerned with IT and telecom The cirp proposal was probably floated by bureaucracy and got dumped after the minister refused to touch it Lawful intercept and monitoring in india is by other agencies under other ministries or under the prime minister / national security advisor so quite possibly outside minister sibal's remit. --srs (htc one x) On 13 October 2013 2:17:26 PM "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi > My understanding is that there are obviously two conferences in India (at > the same day): One called CyFy (organised by the Observe Research > Foundation) with high representation from governments (including US and > Germany) and the Knowledge Summit (which is also of great interest). > I was investigating the background of the CyFy. US is presented by Chris > Painter from the DoS. Germany by the new Commissioner for International > Cyberpolicy Dirk Brengelmann. Key Speaker here is Minister Sibal, who was > in Baku and distanced himself very strongly from the CIRP proposal by > making clear that India is for a free and open Internet, but has its own > interest and can not accept a one sided political or economic dominance by > one group of corproations or one government, a position which was shared by > a lot of CS folks in the breakfest session in Baku. > Does he speak for India as a whole? That is why I asked Parminder to help > us to understand better the local situation in India. India is a key player > and will have an important voice in the "New Internet Season Process". > What I have observed in the last years is that individual governments speak > more and more with different voices. One ministry says this, another one > says something else, sometimes very conflicting with the position of the > other ministry. This is confusing for non-governmental stakeholders who > refer to "the governments of x or y has said this or that". > In Germany, the Ministry of Justice has heavily critisized PRISM and calls > for strong data protection, the Ministry of the Interior is rather silent > and says that there is no problem. The Ministry of Economics represents > Germany in the GAC and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has just reently > nominated Mr. Brengelmann as the new leader to represent Germany in > intergovernmental negotiations in this field. And more ministeries are > involved (consumer protection, defence, economic development). And for the > Chancellor, Internet Governance is sitll "unchartered territory" (which is > true in a certain sense for many governments). > However to charter this territory, it needs more than a "wait and see" > approach. New ideas, which go beyond the classical "send it back to a > governmental body", are needed. There is a need for National > Multistakeholder IG Platforms (as in Brazil) and intergovernmental Internet > negotiations has to be embedded into the aleready existing multistakeholder > environment (called the IG Eco-System). > > I observe that this internal governmental differention, reflecting > different interests of special governmental groups, since years. You can > see this in particular in ICANN meetings where you ask yourself sometimes > whether the individual GAC person speaks for the government as a whole or > just for one ministry or pressure group in the government (law enforcement > as an example by ignoring data commissioners). > > Last week in Washington I had a similar impression from the USG.It is > uncelar whether there is "one US Internet policy". Is it done by the DOC? > The DoS (and here is it Chris Painter or Sepulveda)? Or is it done by DHS > and DoJ and General Alexander and Mr. Clapper? Has the White House a strong > coordinator or do they play with different cards? And what congress os > doing? Can they bring everything to a halt? US governments pays money to > one group to make TOR safe and they pay money to another group to crack > TOR? How far this "left hand does not know what the right hand is doing" is > going? > Similar things you can see in Brazil, in European States, but also in > Russia and even in China. The so-called "London Process" which has arrived > now in Seoul (just the weekend before Bali) with no clue where to go from > there, is another example. > I raise this issue because on Day 1 in Bali we have the Plenary on the role > of governments in the MS Governance Model. > As I can see we have here two problems: One is the missing consensus AMONG > governments of the 193 UN member states and two is the missing consensus > WITHIN single governments. CS should ask questions in Bali about the > internal mechanisms within governments and who speaks on behalf of "one > government" or "the governments". > Insofar the ICANN/Roussoff initiative is of strategic importance and a step > forward. There is a need that a government as a stakeholder needs to speak > with one voice and this can be done only by the highest representative. A > consequence could be to design any nee mechanism along those lines. A > possible outcome from the proposed "Summit Meeting" next year in Brazil > would be to work towards the launch of an "eG20". But such a body would > have to include not only the 20 presidents of the G 20 nations but at least > a similar highest level representation of the other stakeholder groups > (probably 10 seats each for CS, PS and TC). The working methods of such a > (eG20) could be similar to the UNCSTD WGs on IGF Improvement and Enhanced > ooperation where every member had the same rights and was "equal" in making > proposals, discussing language and adopting a final text. > Such a multistakeholder IG body of 50 leaders needs a framework of > guidelines and principles. Insofar the forthcoming sessions in Bali on > principles will be of crucial importance. This is an opportunity to go > beyond the re-cycling of the old positions and to come with innovative > ideas how to use the "window of opportunity" of the "New Internet Season". > Whatever will happen next year in Brazil (April will be in conflict with > the High Level WSIS 10+), guidance should come from the IGF and CS has to > bring all its brains, energy and constructive spirit to Indonesia to play a > similar role to what CS did in the Geneva phase of WSIS in 2003. > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Gesendet: So 13.10.2013 01:11 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; > parminder at itforchange.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. > > > Not very many of the actual players. Expensive registration fees. This is a > talk shop and networking event more than anything else and I don't expect > substantial policy outcomes. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 13-Oct-2013, at 0:04, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > > > It's crystal clear that this Delhi Summit is all about security. While the > meeting won't change the world overnight, the topic will be long lasting, > and shall put State and Defense in the core of investment and decision > making within national blueprints for a ruggedized society. Something > similar to post-Hiroshima redesign of political strategies. > > > Thanks USA for opening the Pandora's box. > > > Louis > - - - > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > http://www.assocham.org/docs/11th-Konwledge-Summit-CyberSecurityBrochure_13.pdf > > CIS India and ISOC are listed as supporting partners. I also see the > council of Europe and ITU APT involved. > Seems to be organized mostly by a national chamber of commerce along with > various Indian ministries. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 12-Oct-2013, at 21:05, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > do you have any information about the Cyberconference in New Dehli, > October 14 - 15 under the leadership of Indian Minister Sibal? Is this > Indians contribution to the "new Season"? Are you or IT for Change > involved? There is a session on Multistakeholderism on Day 2 which speaks > about the need to strengthen civil society impact. As you remember, we > always argued that good Internet governance starts at home. Do you have > something like the Brazilians in India (Marco Civil/cgi.br ?). > > Can you give us and this list some information? This would be certainly > useful also to prepare the various principles sessions in Bali. > > Thanks. > > wolfgang > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 05:30:56 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 20:30:56 +1100 Subject: [governance] DC FoE meeting at Bali IGF Message-ID: The Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the INternet will meet next Monday, 21 October (Day 0), at the IGF in Bali. We will have three guest speakers at the meeting, namely: Xianhong Hu from UNESCO, who will be talking about UNESCO's work in promoting online freedom. Andrew Puddephatt from Global Partners Digital, who will be presenting on the challenges and opportunities of the democratisation of free expression brought about by the Internet and an assessment of the current climate. Sarah Clarke from PEN International, who will speak about the impact of global surveillance on writers and journalists. The meeting will take place from 1600 to 1800 in Uluwatu 5. We look forward to seeing many of you there. Angela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 05:40:55 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:40:55 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Censorship, Filtering and Blocking in Pakistan - A very strong take on the issue Message-ID: Dear all, The local Daily International News on Sunday has taken a strong analysis of the Internet censorship issues in Pakistan: Online Edition: http://jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2013-weekly/nos-13-10-2013/spr.htm Print Edition: Special Report Section 1, Page 32: http://e.thenews.com.pk/10-13-2013/nos_page11.asp Special Report Section 2, Page 33: http://e.thenews.com.pk/10-13-2013/nos_page12.asp -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 13 05:53:06 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:53:06 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. In-Reply-To: <141b1195b38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <8EEB48B7-1172-4665-B56C-93FAC85FB82C@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <141b1195b38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <8913FEBD-854E-4F48-9CBD-D11364816F52@glocom.ac.jp> See section 69 (page 12 of the pdf document). "power to issue directions for interceptions or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource" Power to the central or state government to do just about anything they like. Given Tata's global cable network and the reach of Indian ICT services companies, this seems quite interesting. Adam On Oct 13, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > He speaks for his ministry which is concerned with IT and telecom > > The cirp proposal was probably floated by bureaucracy and got dumped after the minister refused to touch it > > Lawful intercept and monitoring in india is by other agencies under other ministries or under the prime minister / national security advisor so quite possibly outside minister sibal's remit. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 13 October 2013 2:17:26 PM "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Hi >> My understanding is that there are obviously two conferences in India (at the same day): One called CyFy (organised by the Observe Research Foundation) with high representation from governments (including US and Germany) and the Knowledge Summit (which is also of great interest). >> I was investigating the background of the CyFy. US is presented by Chris Painter from the DoS. Germany by the new Commissioner for International Cyberpolicy Dirk Brengelmann. Key Speaker here is Minister Sibal, who was in Baku and distanced himself very strongly from the CIRP proposal by making clear that India is for a free and open Internet, but has its own interest and can not accept a one sided political or economic dominance by one group of corproations or one government, a position which was shared by a lot of CS folks in the breakfest session in Baku. >> Does he speak for India as a whole? That is why I asked Parminder to help us to understand better the local situation in India. India is a key player and will have an important voice in the "New Internet Season Process". >> What I have observed in the last years is that individual governments speak more and more with different voices. One ministry says this, another one says something else, sometimes very conflicting with the position of the other ministry. This is confusing for non-governmental stakeholders who refer to "the governments of x or y has said this or that". >> In Germany, the Ministry of Justice has heavily critisized PRISM and calls for strong data protection, the Ministry of the Interior is rather silent and says that there is no problem. The Ministry of Economics represents Germany in the GAC and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has just reently nominated Mr. Brengelmann as the new leader to represent Germany in intergovernmental negotiations in this field. And more ministeries are involved (consumer protection, defence, economic development). And for the Chancellor, Internet Governance is sitll "unchartered territory" (which is true in a certain sense for many governments). >> However to charter this territory, it needs more than a "wait and see" approach. New ideas, which go beyond the classical "send it back to a governmental body", are needed. There is a need for National Multistakeholder IG Platforms (as in Brazil) and intergovernmental Internet negotiations has to be embedded into the aleready existing multistakeholder environment (called the IG Eco-System). >> >> I observe that this internal governmental differention, reflecting different interests of special governmental groups, since years. You can see this in particular in ICANN meetings where you ask yourself sometimes whether the individual GAC person speaks for the government as a whole or just for one ministry or pressure group in the government (law enforcement as an example by ignoring data commissioners). >> >> Last week in Washington I had a similar impression from the USG.It is uncelar whether there is "one US Internet policy". Is it done by the DOC? The DoS (and here is it Chris Painter or Sepulveda)? Or is it done by DHS and DoJ and General Alexander and Mr. Clapper? Has the White House a strong coordinator or do they play with different cards? And what congress os doing? Can they bring everything to a halt? US governments pays money to one group to make TOR safe and they pay money to another group to crack TOR? How far this "left hand does not know what the right hand is doing" is going? >> Similar things you can see in Brazil, in European States, but also in Russia and even in China. The so-called "London Process" which has arrived now in Seoul (just the weekend before Bali) with no clue where to go from there, is another example. >> I raise this issue because on Day 1 in Bali we have the Plenary on the role of governments in the MS Governance Model. >> As I can see we have here two problems: One is the missing consensus AMONG governments of the 193 UN member states and two is the missing consensus WITHIN single governments. CS should ask questions in Bali about the internal mechanisms within governments and who speaks on behalf of "one government" or "the governments". >> Insofar the ICANN/Roussoff initiative is of strategic importance and a step forward. There is a need that a government as a stakeholder needs to speak with one voice and this can be done only by the highest representative. A consequence could be to design any nee mechanism along those lines. A possible outcome from the proposed "Summit Meeting" next year in Brazil would be to work towards the launch of an "eG20". But such a body would have to include not only the 20 presidents of the G 20 nations but at least a similar highest level representation of the other stakeholder groups (probably 10 seats each for CS, PS and TC). The working methods of such a (eG20) could be similar to the UNCSTD WGs on IGF Improvement and Enhanced ooperation where every member had the same rights and was "equal" in making proposals, discussing language and adopting a final text. >> Such a multistakeholder IG body of 50 leaders needs a framework of guidelines and principles. Insofar the forthcoming sessions in Bali on principles will be of crucial importance. This is an opportunity to go beyond the re-cycling of the old positions and to come with innovative ideas how to use the "window of opportunity" of the "New Internet Season". Whatever will happen next year in Brazil (April will be in conflict with the High Level WSIS 10+), guidance should come from the IGF and CS has to bring all its brains, energy and constructive spirit to Indonesia to play a similar role to what CS did in the Geneva phase of WSIS in 2003. >> Wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Gesendet: So 13.10.2013 01:11 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; parminder at itforchange.net >> Betreff: Re: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. >> >> >> Not very many of the actual players. Expensive registration fees. This is a talk shop and networking event more than anything else and I don't expect substantial policy outcomes. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 13-Oct-2013, at 0:04, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: >> >> >> >> It's crystal clear that this Delhi Summit is all about security. While the meeting won't change the world overnight, the topic will be long lasting, and shall put State and Defense in the core of investment and decision making within national blueprints for a ruggedized society. Something similar to post-Hiroshima redesign of political strategies. >> >> >> Thanks USA for opening the Pandora's box. >> >> >> Louis >> - - - >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> >> http://www.assocham.org/docs/11th-Konwledge-Summit-CyberSecurityBrochure_13.pdf >> >> CIS India and ISOC are listed as supporting partners. I also see the council of Europe and ITU APT involved. >> Seems to be organized mostly by a national chamber of commerce along with various Indian ministries. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 12-Oct-2013, at 21:05, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> do you have any information about the Cyberconference in New Dehli, October 14 - 15 under the leadership of Indian Minister Sibal? Is this Indians contribution to the "new Season"? Are you or IT for Change involved? There is a session on Multistakeholderism on Day 2 which speaks about the need to strengthen civil society impact. As you remember, we always argued that good Internet governance starts at home. Do you have something like the Brazilians in India (Marco Civil/cgi.br ?). >> >> Can you give us and this list some information? This would be certainly useful also to prepare the various principles sessions in Bali. >> >> Thanks. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana at bolobhi.org Sun Oct 13 06:02:47 2013 From: sana at bolobhi.org (Sana Saleem) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:02:47 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Censorship, Filtering and Blocking in Pakistan - A very strong take on the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for sharing Fouad. It's very encouraging to see the issue getting in depth coverage with actual solutions & critique of current policies and absence of safeguards. Want to take the opportunity to inform the list that we've launched a TV show in partnership with business plus, the 12 episodes will air biweekly on Fridays at 8 PM on business plus, with a viewership of over 22 million. We'd love to invite you to share your expertise on the show Fouad. Hopefully we'd be able to bring together diverse voices for Internet governance and policy in Pakistan. You can watch the first episode at YouTube.com/bolobhiorg or Facebook.com/bolobhi Best, Sana On 13-Oct-2013, at 2:40 pm, Fouad Bajwa wrote: Dear all, The local Daily International News on Sunday has taken a strong analysis of the Internet censorship issues in Pakistan: Online Edition: http://jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2013-weekly/nos-13-10-2013/spr.htm Print Edition: Special Report Section 1, Page 32: http://e.thenews.com.pk/10-13-2013/nos_page11.asp Special Report Section 2, Page 33: http://e.thenews.com.pk/10-13-2013/nos_page12.asp -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 06:49:31 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:49:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: The Core Internet institutions abandon the US Government In-Reply-To: <016001cec754$663e6af0$32bb40d0$@gmail.com> References: <016001cec754$663e6af0$32bb40d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 16:07 12/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >why we should attempt to insert ourselves now rather than later. Correct. However, I wish we insert ourselves as responsible actor not as manipulated followers. To do that we need to be aware of the whole context and to put ourselves in a position where we will be asked to join. Dilma needs us againts the (Brazilian) Telcos introduced by Fadi. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 06:49:07 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:49:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> Message-ID: At 10:55 13/10/2013, Anja Kovacs wrote: >I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an >alternative. If that could be a solution for all, we would be ok if >a communication would be sent directly to bureaucrats in the >Brazilian government, without public attention being drawn to that >at this moment, to simply note our appreciation of the initiative at >face value and our preliminary desire to participate, and to alert >them to the fact that a note with more substantial comments will be >sent in about a week's time when we have had the time to consider it >in more detail - indeed following this up with a broader and more >public initiative next week. In that way a flagpole could still be >put in the ground. +1 +1 +1 jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 06:47:51 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:47:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> Message-ID: At 08:58 13/10/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >In fact if she liked hearing from us by means of our previous letter, >she might miss hearing from us if we're silent now. Many politicians >appreciate praise. They prefer matter of fact support. What we show is that we have not understood her dilemna, and therefore that we cannot be of the help she might expect. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sun Oct 13 07:16:28 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 16:46:28 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. In-Reply-To: <8913FEBD-854E-4F48-9CBD-D11364816F52@glocom.ac.jp> References: <8EEB48B7-1172-4665-B56C-93FAC85FB82C@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320B0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <141b1195b38.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <8913FEBD-854E-4F48-9CBD-D11364816F52@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: CYFY is organised by the Observer Research Foundation, a think-thank, and FICCI, an industry body. I have been invited to participate as a panelist from civil society in the session on multistakeholderism. Happy to update those interested following the event. I don't think governments anywhere ever completely speak with one voice on any issue but, to borrow a phrase from Sunil Abraham, I think of that as "a feature, not a bug", at least for the moment. Sibal definitely has considerable standing to speak on security and surveillance issues. For example, telecom comes under his ministry (and unknown surveillance capacities built into imported equipment has been a concern for India for a long time); CERT-IN, responsible for responding to cyber incidents, does as well; and a representative of his ministry is on the review committee constituted under various surveillance legislations. Thanks and best, Anja On 13 October 2013 15:23, Adam Peake wrote: > < > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf > > > > See section 69 (page 12 of the pdf document). "power to issue directions > for interceptions or monitoring or decryption of any information through > any computer resource" Power to the central or state government to do just > about anything they like. Given Tata's global cable network and the reach > of Indian ICT services companies, this seems quite interesting. > > Adam > > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > He speaks for his ministry which is concerned with IT and telecom > > > > The cirp proposal was probably floated by bureaucracy and got dumped > after the minister refused to touch it > > > > Lawful intercept and monitoring in india is by other agencies under > other ministries or under the prime minister / national security advisor so > quite possibly outside minister sibal's remit. > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > > > > On 13 October 2013 2:17:26 PM "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> Hi > >> My understanding is that there are obviously two conferences in India > (at the same day): One called CyFy (organised by the Observe Research > Foundation) with high representation from governments (including US and > Germany) and the Knowledge Summit (which is also of great interest). > >> I was investigating the background of the CyFy. US is presented by > Chris Painter from the DoS. Germany by the new Commissioner for > International Cyberpolicy Dirk Brengelmann. Key Speaker here is Minister > Sibal, who was in Baku and distanced himself very strongly from the CIRP > proposal by making clear that India is for a free and open Internet, but > has its own interest and can not accept a one sided political or economic > dominance by one group of corproations or one government, a position which > was shared by a lot of CS folks in the breakfest session in Baku. > >> Does he speak for India as a whole? That is why I asked Parminder to > help us to understand better the local situation in India. India is a key > player and will have an important voice in the "New Internet Season > Process". > >> What I have observed in the last years is that individual governments > speak more and more with different voices. One ministry says this, another > one says something else, sometimes very conflicting with the position of > the other ministry. This is confusing for non-governmental stakeholders who > refer to "the governments of x or y has said this or that". > >> In Germany, the Ministry of Justice has heavily critisized PRISM and > calls for strong data protection, the Ministry of the Interior is rather > silent and says that there is no problem. The Ministry of Economics > represents Germany in the GAC and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has just > reently nominated Mr. Brengelmann as the new leader to represent Germany in > intergovernmental negotiations in this field. And more ministeries are > involved (consumer protection, defence, economic development). And for the > Chancellor, Internet Governance is sitll "unchartered territory" (which is > true in a certain sense for many governments). > >> However to charter this territory, it needs more than a "wait and see" > approach. New ideas, which go beyond the classical "send it back to a > governmental body", are needed. There is a need for National > Multistakeholder IG Platforms (as in Brazil) and intergovernmental Internet > negotiations has to be embedded into the aleready existing multistakeholder > environment (called the IG Eco-System). > >> > >> I observe that this internal governmental differention, reflecting > different interests of special governmental groups, since years. You can > see this in particular in ICANN meetings where you ask yourself sometimes > whether the individual GAC person speaks for the government as a whole or > just for one ministry or pressure group in the government (law enforcement > as an example by ignoring data commissioners). > >> > >> Last week in Washington I had a similar impression from the USG.It is > uncelar whether there is "one US Internet policy". Is it done by the DOC? > The DoS (and here is it Chris Painter or Sepulveda)? Or is it done by DHS > and DoJ and General Alexander and Mr. Clapper? Has the White House a strong > coordinator or do they play with different cards? And what congress os > doing? Can they bring everything to a halt? US governments pays money to > one group to make TOR safe and they pay money to another group to crack > TOR? How far this "left hand does not know what the right hand is doing" is > going? > >> Similar things you can see in Brazil, in European States, but also in > Russia and even in China. The so-called "London Process" which has arrived > now in Seoul (just the weekend before Bali) with no clue where to go from > there, is another example. > >> I raise this issue because on Day 1 in Bali we have the Plenary on the > role of governments in the MS Governance Model. > >> As I can see we have here two problems: One is the missing consensus > AMONG governments of the 193 UN member states and two is the missing > consensus WITHIN single governments. CS should ask questions in Bali about > the internal mechanisms within governments and who speaks on behalf of "one > government" or "the governments". > >> Insofar the ICANN/Roussoff initiative is of strategic importance and a > step forward. There is a need that a government as a stakeholder needs to > speak with one voice and this can be done only by the highest > representative. A consequence could be to design any nee mechanism along > those lines. A possible outcome from the proposed "Summit Meeting" next > year in Brazil would be to work towards the launch of an "eG20". But such a > body would have to include not only the 20 presidents of the G 20 nations > but at least a similar highest level representation of the other > stakeholder groups (probably 10 seats each for CS, PS and TC). The working > methods of such a (eG20) could be similar to the UNCSTD WGs on IGF > Improvement and Enhanced ooperation where every member had the same rights > and was "equal" in making proposals, discussing language and adopting a > final text. > >> Such a multistakeholder IG body of 50 leaders needs a framework of > guidelines and principles. Insofar the forthcoming sessions in Bali on > principles will be of crucial importance. This is an opportunity to go > beyond the re-cycling of the old positions and to come with innovative > ideas how to use the "window of opportunity" of the "New Internet Season". > Whatever will happen next year in Brazil (April will be in conflict with > the High Level WSIS 10+), guidance should come from the IGF and CS has to > bring all its brains, energy and constructive spirit to Indonesia to play a > similar role to what CS did in the Geneva phase of WSIS in 2003. > >> Wolfgang > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> Von: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > >> Gesendet: So 13.10.2013 01:11 > >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) > >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; > parminder at itforchange.net > >> Betreff: Re: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom > can wait. > >> > >> > >> Not very many of the actual players. Expensive registration fees. This > is a talk shop and networking event more than anything else and I don't > expect substantial policy outcomes. > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >> On 13-Oct-2013, at 0:04, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> It's crystal clear that this Delhi Summit is all about security. > While the meeting won't change the world overnight, the topic will be long > lasting, and shall put State and Defense in the core of investment and > decision making within national blueprints for a ruggedized society. > Something similar to post-Hiroshima redesign of political strategies. > >> > >> > >> Thanks USA for opening the Pandora's box. > >> > >> > >> Louis > >> - - - > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > http://www.assocham.org/docs/11th-Konwledge-Summit-CyberSecurityBrochure_13.pdf > >> > >> CIS India and ISOC are listed as supporting partners. I > also see the council of Europe and ITU APT involved. > >> Seems to be organized mostly by a national chamber of > commerce along with various Indian ministries. > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >> On 12-Oct-2013, at 21:05, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Parminder, > >> > >> do you have any information about the > Cyberconference in New Dehli, October 14 - 15 under the leadership of > Indian Minister Sibal? Is this Indians contribution to the "new Season"? > Are you or IT for Change involved? There is a session on > Multistakeholderism on Day 2 which speaks about the need to strengthen > civil society impact. As you remember, we always argued that good Internet > governance starts at home. Do you have something like the Brazilians in > India (Marco Civil/cgi.br ?). > >> > >> Can you give us and this list some information? > This would be certainly useful also to prepare the various principles > sessions in Bali. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> wolfgang > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 07:48:38 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 23:48:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] DC FoE meeting at Bali IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Angela, Thanks for the update. In case people are not aware of the West Papua and Indonesia conflict: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/west-papua-tony-abbott-australia Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Oct 13, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Angela Daly wrote: > > The Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the INternet will meet next Monday, 21 October (Day 0), at the IGF in Bali. > > We will have three guest speakers at the meeting, namely: > > Xianhong Hu from UNESCO, who will be talking about UNESCO's work in promoting online freedom. > > Andrew Puddephatt from Global Partners Digital, who will be presenting on the challenges and opportunities of the democratisation of free expression brought about by the Internet and an assessment of the current climate. > > Sarah Clarke from PEN International, who will speak about the impact of global surveillance on writers and journalists. > > The meeting will take place from 1600 to 1800 in Uluwatu 5. > > We look forward to seeing many of you there. > > Angela > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 07:49:26 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:49:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Oct 13 08:27:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:27:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> Message-ID: <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> Anja Kovacs wrote: > I do want to > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the consensus > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have expressed > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I think it > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”. That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are strongly in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend political capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a decision in favor. Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a consensus decision from being reached. If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in favor, most organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would never reach any decisions. > we are effectively working against each other here. Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some of the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action, I strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working against each other here”. In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign it does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter it could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter it could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an > alternative. If that could be a solution for all No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since I've already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat them again. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Oct 13 08:35:30 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:35:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. Message-ID: A difference from USA and Patriot Act is that it applies to India only. Well, is that so ? Louis - - - On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > < > http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf > > > > See section 69 (page 12 of the pdf document). "power to issue directions > for interceptions or monitoring or decryption of any information through > any computer resource" Power to the central or state government to do just > about anything they like. Given Tata's global cable network and the reach > of Indian ICT services companies, this seems quite interesting. > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Oct 13 08:46:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:16:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <174F8D1E-4773-4D7E-911F-419443737768@hserus.net> In theory. In perhaps unintended practice .. https://citizenlab.org/2012/07/routing-gone-wild/ --srs (iPad) > On 13-Oct-2013, at 18:05, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > A difference from USA and Patriot Act is that it applies to India only. > Well, is that so ? > > Louis > - - - > >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> See section 69 (page 12 of the pdf document). "power to issue directions for interceptions or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource" Power to the central or state government to do just about anything they like. Given Tata's global cable network and the reach of Indian ICT services companies, this seems quite interesting. >> >> Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 13 08:47:49 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 21:47:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] New Security Season for the world. Freedom can wait. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Where does the Act state that? Thanks, Adam On Oct 13, 2013, at 9:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > A difference from USA and Patriot Act is that it applies to India only. > Well, is that so ? > > Louis > - - - > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > See section 69 (page 12 of the pdf document). "power to issue directions for interceptions or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource" Power to the central or state government to do just about anything they like. Given Tata's global cable network and the reach of Indian ICT services companies, this seems quite interesting. > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sun Oct 13 09:19:42 2013 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:19:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] New publication: contested internet governance Message-ID: illustration care of DiploFoundation Revue française d¹études américaines 2012/4 (n° 134). 128 pages. Editeur : Belin ISSN : 0397-7870 ISSN en ligne : 1776-3061. ISBN : 9782701162829. Lien : . Contested Internet Governance Divina Frau-Meigs (Ed.). Conducting Research on the Internet and its Governance Page 3-19 The Internet and its Governance: A General Bibliography Page 20-24 Glossary of Key Terms and Notions about Internet Governance Page 25 à 28 Julia Pohle et Luciano Morganti The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN): Origins, Stakes and Tensions Page 29-46 Francesca Musiani et al. Net Neutrality as an Internet Governance Issue: The Globalization of an American-Born Debate Page 47- 63 Jeanette Hofmann Narratives of Copyright Enforcement: The Upward Ratchet and the Sleeping Giant Page 64-80 Elizabeth Dubois et William H. Dutton The Fifth Estate in Internet Governance: Collective Accountability of a Canadian Policy Initiative Page 81-97 Mathieu O¹Neil Collaborative Internet Governance: Terms and Conditions of Analysis Page 98 -113 Peng Hwa Ang et Natalie Pang Globalization of the Internet, Sovereignty or Democracy: The Trilemma of the Internet Governance Forum Page 114-127 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RFEA 134 contested internet governance.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 293484 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 13 09:32:54 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 09:32:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Formal Objection to consensus call Message-ID: Dear Co-ordinators, I don't know what makes an objection formal, but at this point I object to the entire process you are rushing through. I beleive: - you do not have consensus on sending a letter - you do not have agreement on wording of a letter. I do not know what you mean by a formal objection - do you mean I have to start an appeals team process. If necessary I will. You are using silence much too much, especially when fewer the 10% of the membership are participating and the length of time you give is too short. In fact, how many people really want this thing. To have a hand full of people who push something hard on a mostly apathetic group is NOT consensus - it is an abuse of that term. The establishing of a weekend deadline of less that a day with no time for people to react is completely objectionable. So to be clear I still object to the wording and thus object to sending any letter until the wording is corrected. - it does not address both leaders. I already gave a recommendations for how it was to be reworded - it has to address both of the leaders equally with their appropriate honorific - it contains "Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative." which needs to be dropped We do not have enough knowledge, we do not consensus of this statement, and it is irrelevant to the letter. Until such time as the wording is agreeable, I FORMALLY OBJECT to the sending/signing of this letter. The idea of the co-coordinators taking it upon themselves to define a consensus in the way they are doing so is completely unacceptable. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 09:47:39 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 22:47:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Formal Objection to consensus call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Avri, I join you in this objection and the last response to Anja confirmed my concerns regarding how the process is conducted. Thanks again, Best, Rafik Le 13 Oct 2013 à 22:32, Avri Doria a écrit : > > Dear Co-ordinators, > > I don't know what makes an objection formal, but at this point I object to the entire process you are rushing through. > > I beleive: > > - you do not have consensus on sending a letter > - you do not have agreement on wording of a letter. > > I do not know what you mean by a formal objection - do you mean I have to start an appeals team process. If necessary I will. You are using silence much too much, especially when fewer the 10% of the membership are participating and the length of time you give is too short. In fact, how many people really want this thing. To have a hand full of people who push something hard on a mostly apathetic group is NOT consensus - it is an abuse of that term. > > The establishing of a weekend deadline of less that a day with no time for people to react is completely objectionable. > > So to be clear I still object to the wording and thus object to sending any letter until the wording is corrected. > > - it does not address both leaders. I already gave a recommendations for how it was to be reworded - it has to address both of the leaders equally with their appropriate honorific > > - it contains "Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative." which needs to be dropped We do not have enough knowledge, we do not consensus of this statement, and it is irrelevant to the letter. > > Until such time as the wording is agreeable, I FORMALLY OBJECT to the sending/signing of this letter. The idea of the co-coordinators taking it upon themselves to define a consensus in the way they are doing so is completely unacceptable. > > > avri > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 09:48:12 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:48:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> Message-ID: Hi guys, I would hate to see this debate drag on for a few more days because with that time and energy, we could get something out to the Brazilian government/ presidency if that were to be the preferred choice by whatever decision-making procedure is required here. So instead of further debating this, the concerned organs (co-cos or steering committee, depending on whether we're talking about IGC or BestBits) may exercise their judgement as to whether to initiate such decision procedure. I (and I'm sure many others here) certainly can live with either course of action because the truth is nothing is really certain here, keeping in mind the following. 1. We may be looking at about two weeks (not 1) from now for the delivery of any outcome from Bali BestBits to President Rousseff (I am assuming that since the Bali session will be developing a full CS agenda, it might take the whole day session to get something out and there shall be a few days given to online comments and discussions by a broader audience and maybe endorsements, etc.) 2. It is safe to assume that President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade have not personally and directly been working on this initiative since they declared it, but that a team is tasked on both sides to follow up and work on details, etc. IMHO, it is a conjecture to say two weeks from now the train will have left the station just as it is a bet to think it won't (and as a result CS would not be playing catch-up, in its usual reactive mode.) We may choose one path or the other, we should be able to admit that there is no evidence to predict that one will certainly be better for us, across the board, than the other (even though we can make sound arguments as to why we think one or the other would be a smarter and more productive choice), as that outcome will also depend on a number of things that may happen in the next, say, ten days, which we don't have control over. 3. On the basis of the above, if our "Custodians" think it's worth getting into decision mode, then let's get into the decision mode. Otherwise, please let's adjourn the debate as to what is best and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, until Bali. 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including CS proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. Thanks, Mawaki On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > I do want to > > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and > > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. > > *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. > > > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points > > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the consensus > > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have expressed > > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I think it > > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been > > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. > > The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”. > That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are strongly > in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain > opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend political > capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a decision > in favor. > > Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not > expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a > consensus decision from being reached. > > If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in favor, most > organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would never > reach any decisions. > > > we are effectively working against each other here. > > Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some of > the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to > discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action, I > strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working > against each other here”. > > In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign it > does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits > action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter it > could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter it > could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do > understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. > > > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an > > alternative. If that could be a solution for all > > No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since I've > already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present > letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat > them again. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Oct 13 09:50:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:20:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Formal Objection to consensus call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21E38F84-C034-4E53-837C-30A13C3F8170@hserus.net> +1 added to which, believe me, it doesn't pay to intervene much too often when interacting directly with heads of state. Get quoted by a Brazilian newspaper that her aides can send her a copy of and you achieve your purpose. Once you agree on the text. --srs (iPad) > On 13-Oct-2013, at 19:02, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Dear Co-ordinators, > > I don't know what makes an objection formal, but at this point I object to the entire process you are rushing through. > > I beleive: > > - you do not have consensus on sending a letter > - you do not have agreement on wording of a letter. > > I do not know what you mean by a formal objection - do you mean I have to start an appeals team process. If necessary I will. You are using silence much too much, especially when fewer the 10% of the membership are participating and the length of time you give is too short. In fact, how many people really want this thing. To have a hand full of people who push something hard on a mostly apathetic group is NOT consensus - it is an abuse of that term. > > The establishing of a weekend deadline of less that a day with no time for people to react is completely objectionable. > > So to be clear I still object to the wording and thus object to sending any letter until the wording is corrected. > > - it does not address both leaders. I already gave a recommendations for how it was to be reworded - it has to address both of the leaders equally with their appropriate honorific > > - it contains "Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative." which needs to be dropped We do not have enough knowledge, we do not consensus of this statement, and it is irrelevant to the letter. > > Until such time as the wording is agreeable, I FORMALLY OBJECT to the sending/signing of this letter. The idea of the co-coordinators taking it upon themselves to define a consensus in the way they are doing so is completely unacceptable. > > > avri > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Sun Oct 13 10:01:51 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 10:01:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL RESULTS Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: <20131013090503.089a763d@quill> References: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> <20131012165529.5e9192e5@swan.bollow.ch> <20131013083041.0a6f1d05@quill> <20131013090503.089a763d@quill> Message-ID: I support the draft letter. I defintively would have preferred letting ICANN head as a cc and not as the same level as Brasil President, but if this is the price to pay to get a more consensual letter in this forum I am ready to pay it. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Oct 13 10:10:03 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 16:10:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Formal Objection to consensus call Message-ID: Hi all, Let's be realistic. The consensus rules are stated so that there can't be any solution. Close the subject, and what next ? Btw, nothing prevents a group of individuals from sending the proposed text, if they sign their own name as IGC member's personal position. Louis - - - On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > +1 added to which, believe me, it doesn't pay to intervene much too often > when interacting directly with heads of state. Get quoted by a Brazilian > newspaper that her aides can send her a copy of and you achieve your > purpose. Once you agree on the text. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 13-Oct-2013, at 19:02, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > Dear Co-ordinators, > > > > I don't know what makes an objection formal, but at this point I object > to the entire process you are rushing through. > > > > I beleive: > > > > - you do not have consensus on sending a letter > > - you do not have agreement on wording of a letter. > > > > I do not know what you mean by a formal objection - do you mean I have > to start an appeals team process. If necessary I will. You are using > silence much too much, especially when fewer the 10% of the membership are > participating and the length of time you give is too short. In fact, how > many people really want this thing. To have a hand full of people who push > something hard on a mostly apathetic group is NOT consensus - it is an > abuse of that term. > > > > The establishing of a weekend deadline of less that a day with no time > for people to react is completely objectionable. > > > > So to be clear I still object to the wording and thus object to sending > any letter until the wording is corrected. > > > > - it does not address both leaders. I already gave a recommendations > for how it was to be reworded - it has to address both of the leaders > equally with their appropriate honorific > > > > - it contains "Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society > partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we > look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative." which > needs to be dropped We do not have enough knowledge, we do not consensus > of this statement, and it is irrelevant to the letter. > > > > Until such time as the wording is agreeable, I FORMALLY OBJECT to the > sending/signing of this letter. The idea of the co-coordinators taking it > upon themselves to define a consensus in the way they are doing so is > completely unacceptable. > > > > > > avri > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Oct 13 10:13:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:43:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Formal Objection to consensus call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That second paragraph is correct. It does prevent the caucus signing its name and possibly signifying a consensus within the caucus on the appropriateness of the letter and its text, till that is settled. --srs (iPad) > On 13-Oct-2013, at 19:40, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Let's be realistic. The consensus rules are stated so that there can't be any solution. Close the subject, and what next ? > > Btw, nothing prevents a group of individuals from sending the proposed text, if they sign their own name as IGC member's personal position. > > Louis > - - - > >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> +1 added to which, believe me, it doesn't pay to intervene much too often when interacting directly with heads of state. Get quoted by a Brazilian newspaper that her aides can send her a copy of and you achieve your purpose. Once you agree on the text. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> > On 13-Oct-2013, at 19:02, Avri Doria wrote: >> > >> > >> > Dear Co-ordinators, >> > >> > I don't know what makes an objection formal, but at this point I object to the entire process you are rushing through. >> > >> > I beleive: >> > >> > - you do not have consensus on sending a letter >> > - you do not have agreement on wording of a letter. >> > >> > I do not know what you mean by a formal objection - do you mean I have to start an appeals team process. If necessary I will. You are using silence much too much, especially when fewer the 10% of the membership are participating and the length of time you give is too short. In fact, how many people really want this thing. To have a hand full of people who push something hard on a mostly apathetic group is NOT consensus - it is an abuse of that term. >> > >> > The establishing of a weekend deadline of less that a day with no time for people to react is completely objectionable. >> > >> > So to be clear I still object to the wording and thus object to sending any letter until the wording is corrected. >> > >> > - it does not address both leaders. I already gave a recommendations for how it was to be reworded - it has to address both of the leaders equally with their appropriate honorific >> > >> > - it contains "Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative." which needs to be dropped We do not have enough knowledge, we do not consensus of this statement, and it is irrelevant to the letter. >> > >> > Until such time as the wording is agreeable, I FORMALLY OBJECT to the sending/signing of this letter. The idea of the co-coordinators taking it upon themselves to define a consensus in the way they are doing so is completely unacceptable. >> > >> > >> > avri >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From exigencygh at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 10:32:41 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:32:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <1179958410.12230.1381585214823.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k17> References: <1179958410.12230.1381585214823.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k17> Message-ID: +1 Simon Ontoyin On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > OK Louis, +1 > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > Message du 12/10/13 11:26 > > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "parminder" > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > > > > > Parminder's proposal is fine. A longer text is going to make it less > significant. > > > > > Louis > > - - - > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 6:10 AM, parminder wrote: > > >> >> Add a sentence just before the line to the following effect >> > >> > "Civil society offers to fully participate in the initiative as an >> equal partner, various process of which should be open and inclusive, >> Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with >> regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to >> working with it on this initiative. " >> > >> > Whereby the statement would look like as follows: >> > >> > (begins) >> > >> > Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >> Brazilian government. >> > >> >> > We, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals from >> around the world, would like to express our appreciation and support for >> the recently announced initiative of the government of Brazil, along with >> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to >> “discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance” and to restore trust >> in the Internet as the foundation of our global information societies. >> > >> > We consider these to be discussions of crucial importance for the >> future of the development of the Internet in the global public interest and >> for the shared benefit of the peoples of the world. >> > >> > >> Civil society offers to fully participate in the initiative as an equal >> partner, various process of which should be open and inclusive, Brazil has >> an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to >> many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with >> Brazil on this initiative. >> >> > In view of the global importance of this subject, we look forward to >> contributing to your initiative with specific and concrete proposals. >> > >> > >> (ends) >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Simon Ontoyin Director, Exigency Ghana Limited Email: exigencygh at gmail.com Tel: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Oct 13 10:55:21 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:55:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL RESULTS Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: References: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> <20131012165529.5e9192e5@swan.bollow.ch> <20131013083041.0a6f1d05@quill> Message-ID: <525AB459.1010507@cafonso.ca> Why not just "Your Excellency", period, as we did in the Sept.26th letter to her? --c.a. On 10/13/2013 03:52 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > The text of the letter is fine, I'm not sure of the purpose and value of sending it, but the text itself is fine. > > What's incorrect is the salutation. I'm no expert on protocol, but > > "Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the, Brazilian government..." no! > > Your Excellency might be correct, Madam President if following the U.S. style. But other representatives? Who are they (why are they there?) > > As others have said, from all we have seen about this initiative it is a joint proposal of Madam Rousseff and Mr. Chehadé. This mailing list and others have been dominated this past few days by a thread "Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014". The letter should be addressed to them both. Madam Rousseff obviously first. > > Adam > > > > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>> Your Excellency President Rousseff and other representatives of the >>>> Brazilian government, > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 13 11:41:46 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:41:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Does ICANN protect multistakeholderism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I have been following Milton's article of ICANN accountability and am waiting for the last installment. They are well written with a certain punch one does not find in other writing. I find them a good read. As always, Milton brings up good points, though I occasionally find myself coming to different conclusions on the issues. In this case, I am a member of this year's* ICANN IOC Accountability and Transparency Review Team. The draft of our report will be coming out in the next few weeks, though pre-drafts are already floating on the discussion list that has an open archive (for anyone dying to read not fully copy edited text): ATRT2 lists** the main discussion < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/> In case anyone cares, all meetings are also recorded and transcribed I think that there are two parts to the evaluation of how ICANN is doing in this process - the work of the ATRT2 and its final report - the respect to which ICANN Staff and Board adopt and implement the recommendations in the report Part of the work of ATRT2 is to evaluate the work done in response to ATRT1 report. And part is making new recommendations. ATRT2 is the first time this review of the response to previous reviews has been included, as this is the beginning of the second cycle through the project. Anyway, once the draft report is out and the comment period begins, I will be sure to send all of the lists the URL. I hope lots of people read and comment. I should note also, that the writing is all done by team members, and not by the ICANN Staff. The means that it is our primary text and that it is also not quite as polished as something Staff might have written. In the end it will be a consensus report of the members. While it will take a bit longer to get released, the report is also being translated into the UN languages. At the time of first release of the draft, I beleive, only the Executive Summary will have been translated. I personally believe that the IOC reviews are a clever way to institute a model of multistakeholder review. As with all things in ICANN's multistakeholder processes it is still a work in progress in what I beleive is still one of the most forward looking of the efforts to build the form of participatory democracy we are calling the MSism. But these reviews are a part that is still very much in the crucible, and there is a lot to be seen yet on the degree to which this form of bottom up soft oversight can take root and be effective. I figure I will write my own blog piece on the ATRT process, once we have delivered our report at the end of the year. Until then I remain one of its vice-chairs and thus one of its servants. avri ---- * the ATRT review is a 1 year process repeated every 3 years ** For completeness (and in case anyone needs it): There is also a closed confidential list that has been used by several community members who had things to say to the ATRT2 they could not say publicly. This list is only seen by a sub-set of the team members - e.g. no staff or Board members on the list and a closed archive. AOC - Affirmation of Commitments ATRT1 - The first instantiation of the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (2010) ATRT2 - Te second instantiation of the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (2013) MSism - the theory and practice of governance using multi-stakeholder models of participatory democracy. On 13 Oct 2013, at 01:08, Anja Kovacs wrote: > It seems that some or not quite as convinced as Norbert is that it does anymore: > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/08/31/icanns-accountability-meltdown-a-four-part-series/ > > Which explains the discomfort of some on the list with a letter being sent out before more details are available (though the lack of detail is not a concern to me). > > Thanks to friends who are active in ICANN for drawing my attention to this growing concern. > > Best, > Anja > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 12:16:16 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 21:16:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Censorship, Filtering and Blocking in Pakistan - A very strong take on the issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <095AC55A-B7F5-4037-9DE9-FA1A0EE440BE@gmail.com> Sure Sana, just drop me an email with the details. I'll be traveling for sometime after the 27th Oct so might want to do something before that? Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Sana Saleem wrote: > Thanks for sharing Fouad. It's very encouraging to see the issue getting in depth coverage with actual solutions & critique of current policies and absence of safeguards. > > Want to take the opportunity to inform the list that we've launched a TV show in partnership with business plus, the 12 episodes will air biweekly on Fridays at 8 PM on business plus, with a viewership of over 22 million. > > We'd love to invite you to share your expertise on the show Fouad. Hopefully we'd be able to bring together diverse voices for Internet governance and policy in Pakistan. > > You can watch the first episode at YouTube.com/bolobhiorg or Facebook.com/bolobhi > > Best, > Sana > > On 13-Oct-2013, at 2:40 pm, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Dear all, > > The local Daily International News on Sunday has taken a strong > analysis of the Internet censorship issues in Pakistan: > > Online Edition: > http://jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2013-weekly/nos-13-10-2013/spr.htm > > Print Edition: > Special Report Section 1, Page 32: > http://e.thenews.com.pk/10-13-2013/nos_page11.asp > > Special Report Section 2, Page 33: > http://e.thenews.com.pk/10-13-2013/nos_page12.asp > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Sun Oct 13 12:16:37 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:16:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <20131013114945.D8DC22180 0D@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: <022C6142-EE34-4D39-8F1C-E457AF12D0FD@consensus.pro> A few months ago Snowden happened, which affected the positions taken by many heads-of-state, including, very clearly, President Rousseff. As to the idea that NTIA is behind Fadi's meeting in Brasilia - I find this not credible at all: why on earth would the USG welcome a head-of-state-led conference on the role of surveillance in society, especially one organised in Brasilia with the active participation of the Brazilian head-of-state? And, if they would welcome it, all they'd have to do is say so publicly: that would get them a lot of positive visibility. Doing it by proxy gets them nothing. On 13 Oct 2013, at 17:29, " João Carlos R. Caribé " wrote: > I fully agree with the JFC Morfin, and say more like Brazilian, the initiative come from civil society, understand: > > Until a few months ago, Dilma had another position, followed the advice of the Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, that follow the agenda of telecom companies. > > Many activists, including me, and opinion leaders criticized the posture of Paul Bernardo, also we decided to criticize Dilma, since in practice, the adherence to the agenda of telecom companies was the government's position, and not only the ministry. > > Considering the popularity of Rousseff had fallen a lot during the demonstrations in the streets, which were heavily exploited by the opposition to weaken it politically. This new opposition coming from the Internet could be tragic for his project of re-election in 2014. > > After conversation with his predecessor, Lula, Dilma became advised by Franklin Martins, and during this process she met with CGI.Br where she got much of his speech at the UN. This speech that won strong support from the international community, as we know. > > Also we know that ICANN strives to strengthen its multistakeholder model, and thus distance themselves from the image of being an "appendix" of the U.S. government. Realizing the opportunity arose after Rousseff's speech at the UN, Fadi and his counselors come immediately to meet our President to seize this window of opportunity that open. > > And that we have to face, a window of opportunity, we from the civil society have to position ourselves as protagonists behind this "wave", because we know that bad decisions that could change the internet as we know, it may arise, and this time we have to act together and strengthened to rebate. > > My $0,02 > > - > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via iPad > > Em 13/10/2013, às 08:49, JFC Morfin escreveu: > >> At 20:52 11/10/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Valid point Parminder. >>>> By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that... >> >> Then ?... >> >> It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN as a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and, therefore, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with her speech. To succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is led by US StakeHolders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather when they call on us in response to our first letter. >> >> If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US, Brazil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it is not) Dilma’s Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector, international organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it will be NTIA's coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with the ITU Dubai-signatories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as a liaison), using all of us. I have nothing against the US "e-colonization" strategy (which is named "internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode; OECD in economy, NATO in military), except that: >> >> - I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital ecosystem because it is based on 1983 architectural statUS-quo that is to protect a market and political statUS-quo. >> - I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy. Globalization is a practical fact that raises problems (economic crisis, global warming, etc.). The world's uncontrolled globalization is a pandemic that has to be taken care of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism. >> - If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA: who would in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH hijacking by ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only with those two? >> >> Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic governance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that the NSA was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a secret agency that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about ours? >> >> Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazil’s President? >> >> What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian, Malian, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) people’s positions and societal, industrial, and Telcos’ interests? Why don’t we discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization? Why do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few of us? >> >> This is most probably because a global democracy can only be multilateralistic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a dominance). In our area, this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo that benefits the US and all those having a stake in the US private sector) – actually both as we saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We know that none of them could be sustainable as they would resurrect the cold war. Actually what we should try to work out is a multicultural, multilinguistic, multinational, multistakeholder, open and, therefore, non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal of the democratic ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time. >> >> Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called polycracy. Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while we still try to understand the way they work and discover its best practices, its incompletion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hysteresis) confuse us, pollute everyone’s thinking, and deny all of us the experience that we need. >> >> NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment (statUS-quo). >> >> Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that there is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for international societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss and word out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in the facts (not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more adequately through the digital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay, and use for and on the net). >> >> Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have to consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and globally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital extension do we want? How do we achieve and protect it? >> >> A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting ICANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization rights as per the Internet technology (and ICANN’s own documents)? >> >> Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the circumstances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want to better pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives. >> >> jfc >> >>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>>>> Anja +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics. >>>>>> >>>>>> I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately  will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... >>>>>> >>>>>> regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> R. Guerra >>>>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My two paise, >>>>>>> Anja >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>>> Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >>>>>>> > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is >>>>>>> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >>>>>>> > havent been told the risk - and beyond  a point, just about any >>>>>>> > political act carries risk. >>>>>>> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >>>>>>> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >>>>>>> certainty of losing that opportunity. >>>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>>> Norbert >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen >>>>> anriette at apc.org >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>> www.apc.org >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>> south africa >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 >>>>> 1692 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen >>> anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 >>> 1692 >>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana at bolobhi.org Sun Oct 13 12:22:38 2013 From: sana at bolobhi.org (Sana Saleem) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 21:22:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Censorship, Filtering and Blocking in Pakistan - A very strong take on the issue In-Reply-To: <095AC55A-B7F5-4037-9DE9-FA1A0EE440BE@gmail.com> References: <095AC55A-B7F5-4037-9DE9-FA1A0EE440BE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9A12DD1C-4B78-48FF-AD0F-081F7C820DE6@bolobhi.org> Would definitely get in touch before that. Sana Sent from my iPhone On 13-Oct-2013, at 9:16 pm, Fouad Bajwa wrote: Sure Sana, just drop me an email with the details. I'll be traveling for sometime after the 27th Oct so might want to do something before that? Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device > On Oct 13, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Sana Saleem wrote: > > Thanks for sharing Fouad. It's very encouraging to see the issue getting in depth coverage with actual solutions & critique of current policies and absence of safeguards. > > Want to take the opportunity to inform the list that we've launched a TV show in partnership with business plus, the 12 episodes will air biweekly on Fridays at 8 PM on business plus, with a viewership of over 22 million. > > We'd love to invite you to share your expertise on the show Fouad. Hopefully we'd be able to bring together diverse voices for Internet governance and policy in Pakistan. > > You can watch the first episode at YouTube.com/bolobhiorg or Facebook.com/bolobhi > > Best, > Sana > > On 13-Oct-2013, at 2:40 pm, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Dear all, > > The local Daily International News on Sunday has taken a strong > analysis of the Internet censorship issues in Pakistan: > > Online Edition: > http://jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2013-weekly/nos-13-10-2013/spr.htm > > Print Edition: > Special Report Section 1, Page 32: > http://e.thenews.com.pk/10-13-2013/nos_page11.asp > > Special Report Section 2, Page 33: > http://e.thenews.com.pk/10-13-2013/nos_page12.asp > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Oct 13 12:35:36 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:35:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Does ICANN protect multistakeholderism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Update: > The draft of our report will be coming out in the next few weeks, though pre-drafts are already floating on the discussion list I was just told off-list that the docs aren't actually there. I beleive they should be. The email is archived as I mentioned, but we seem to have scrubbed the docs from the list. I do not think this is as it should be, and have start looking into it. The latest working draft can be found at: As I say though it is only a few weeks until release. avri On 13 Oct 2013, at 11:41, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I have been following Milton's article of ICANN accountability and am waiting for the last installment. They are well written with a certain punch one does not find in other writing. I find them a good read. > > As always, Milton brings up good points, though I occasionally find myself coming to different conclusions on the issues. > > In this case, I am a member of this year's* ICANN IOC Accountability and Transparency Review Team. The draft of our report will be coming out in the next few weeks, though pre-drafts are already floating on the discussion list that has an open archive (for anyone dying to read not fully copy edited text): > > ATRT2 lists** > the main discussion < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/> > > In case anyone cares, all meetings are also recorded and transcribed > > I think that there are two parts to the evaluation of how ICANN is doing in this process > > - the work of the ATRT2 and its final report > - the respect to which ICANN Staff and Board adopt and implement the recommendations in the report > > Part of the work of ATRT2 is to evaluate the work done in response to ATRT1 report. And part is making new recommendations. ATRT2 is the first time this review of the response to previous reviews has been included, as this is the beginning of the second cycle through the project. > > Anyway, once the draft report is out and the comment period begins, I will be sure to send all of the lists the URL. I hope lots of people read and comment. I should note also, that the writing is all done by team members, and not by the ICANN Staff. The means that it is our primary text and that it is also not quite as polished as something Staff might have written. In the end it will be a consensus report of the members. While it will take a bit longer to get released, the report is also being translated into the UN languages. At the time of first release of the draft, I beleive, only the Executive Summary will have been translated. > > I personally believe that the IOC reviews are a clever way to institute a model of multistakeholder review. As with all things in ICANN's multistakeholder processes it is still a work in progress in what I beleive is still one of the most forward looking of the efforts to build the form of participatory democracy we are calling the MSism. But these reviews are a part that is still very much in the crucible, and there is a lot to be seen yet on the degree to which this form of bottom up soft oversight can take root and be effective. > > I figure I will write my own blog piece on the ATRT process, once we have delivered our report at the end of the year. Until then I remain one of its vice-chairs and thus one of its servants. > > avri > > ---- > > * the ATRT review is a 1 year process repeated every 3 years > > ** For completeness (and in case anyone needs it): There is also a closed confidential list that has been used by several community members who had things to say to the ATRT2 they could not say publicly. This list is only seen by a sub-set of the team members - e.g. no staff or Board members on the list and a closed archive. > > AOC - Affirmation of Commitments > ATRT1 - The first instantiation of the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (2010) > ATRT2 - Te second instantiation of the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (2013) > MSism - the theory and practice of governance using multi-stakeholder models of participatory democracy. > > > > > On 13 Oct 2013, at 01:08, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> It seems that some or not quite as convinced as Norbert is that it does anymore: >> >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/08/31/icanns-accountability-meltdown-a-four-part-series/ >> >> Which explains the discomfort of some on the list with a letter being sent out before more details are available (though the lack of detail is not a concern to me). >> >> Thanks to friends who are active in ICANN for drawing my attention to this growing concern. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Oct 13 12:45:35 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 18:45:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL RESULTS Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: References: <017501cec756$817868f0$84693ad0$@gmail.com> <20131012165529.5e9192e5@swan.bollow.ch> <20131013083041.0a6f1d05@quill> <20131013090503.089a763d@quill> Message-ID: <900993590.18449.1381682735092.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f09> You are perfectly right, Daniel State sovereignty is to be considered as first ranking Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 13/10/13 16:02 > De : "Daniel Pimienta" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL RESULTS Re: Draft letter text > > I support the draft letter. > > I defintively would have preferred letting ICANN head as a cc and not > as the same level as Brasil President, > but if this is the price to pay to get a more consensual letter in > this forum I am ready to pay it. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Oct 13 14:13:58 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:13:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Does ICANN protect multistakeholderism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8990917A-27BE-4CBA-94D5-035D8EFC1486@ella.com> Hi, Sometimes, I am just an idiot. The attachments are there. I was rushing. avri On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > Update: > >> The draft of our report will be coming out in the next few weeks, though pre-drafts are already floating on the discussion list > > I was just told off-list that the docs aren't actually there. I beleive they should be. > > The email is archived as I mentioned, but we seem to have scrubbed the docs from the list. I do not think this is as it should be, and have start looking into it. > > The latest working draft can be found at: > > As I say though it is only a few weeks until release. > > avri > > > > On 13 Oct 2013, at 11:41, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have been following Milton's article of ICANN accountability and am waiting for the last installment. They are well written with a certain punch one does not find in other writing. I find them a good read. >> >> As always, Milton brings up good points, though I occasionally find myself coming to different conclusions on the issues. >> >> In this case, I am a member of this year's* ICANN IOC Accountability and Transparency Review Team. The draft of our report will be coming out in the next few weeks, though pre-drafts are already floating on the discussion list that has an open archive (for anyone dying to read not fully copy edited text): >> >> ATRT2 lists** >> the main discussion < http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/> >> >> In case anyone cares, all meetings are also recorded and transcribed >> >> I think that there are two parts to the evaluation of how ICANN is doing in this process >> >> - the work of the ATRT2 and its final report >> - the respect to which ICANN Staff and Board adopt and implement the recommendations in the report >> >> Part of the work of ATRT2 is to evaluate the work done in response to ATRT1 report. And part is making new recommendations. ATRT2 is the first time this review of the response to previous reviews has been included, as this is the beginning of the second cycle through the project. >> >> Anyway, once the draft report is out and the comment period begins, I will be sure to send all of the lists the URL. I hope lots of people read and comment. I should note also, that the writing is all done by team members, and not by the ICANN Staff. The means that it is our primary text and that it is also not quite as polished as something Staff might have written. In the end it will be a consensus report of the members. While it will take a bit longer to get released, the report is also being translated into the UN languages. At the time of first release of the draft, I beleive, only the Executive Summary will have been translated. >> >> I personally believe that the IOC reviews are a clever way to institute a model of multistakeholder review. As with all things in ICANN's multistakeholder processes it is still a work in progress in what I beleive is still one of the most forward looking of the efforts to build the form of participatory democracy we are calling the MSism. But these reviews are a part that is still very much in the crucible, and there is a lot to be seen yet on the degree to which this form of bottom up soft oversight can take root and be effective. >> >> I figure I will write my own blog piece on the ATRT process, once we have delivered our report at the end of the year. Until then I remain one of its vice-chairs and thus one of its servants. >> >> avri >> >> ---- >> >> * the ATRT review is a 1 year process repeated every 3 years >> >> ** For completeness (and in case anyone needs it): There is also a closed confidential list that has been used by several community members who had things to say to the ATRT2 they could not say publicly. This list is only seen by a sub-set of the team members - e.g. no staff or Board members on the list and a closed archive. >> >> AOC - Affirmation of Commitments >> ATRT1 - The first instantiation of the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (2010) >> ATRT2 - Te second instantiation of the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team (2013) >> MSism - the theory and practice of governance using multi-stakeholder models of participatory democracy. >> >> >> >> >> On 13 Oct 2013, at 01:08, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>> It seems that some or not quite as convinced as Norbert is that it does anymore: >>> >>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/08/31/icanns-accountability-meltdown-a-four-part-series/ >>> >>> Which explains the discomfort of some on the list with a letter being sent out before more details are available (though the lack of detail is not a concern to me). >>> >>> Thanks to friends who are active in ICANN for drawing my attention to this growing concern. >>> >>> Best, >>> Anja >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Oct 13 16:14:24 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 20:14:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20131012082739.5ac8c2bb@quill>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284BDF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sala, "ask for the scope of such a meeting and find out intended objectives" is I suggest wrong tone; cs is not a supplicant but a player which can help set the agenda and define the scope and objectives. But yes certainly learning more of current status of planning over a cup of coffee is a good move. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:02 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; JFC Morfin; Anriette Esterhuysen; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process My personal view is to omit from credit neither organization nor nation. Civil society is already on record via the previous letter. We need to stick to alerting them of the need for inclusion and civil society participation. This will give is a neutral position. At this stage, civil society needs to be neutral until we are fully aware of the scope of such a meeting. What certainly needs to happen is that we need to ask for the scope of such a meeting and find out intended objectives. We could also secure a meeting in Brazil where we could discuss this informally over coffee in Bali. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 12, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > McTim wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: >> [..] >> What I want is to speak the truth. >> >> As you yourself said above: >> >>> "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by Fadi >>> and accepted by Dilma." > > Let's use language that credits both ICANN and Brazil for the > initiative, and which mentions the government of Brazil in the more > prominent first spot. > > Logically, saying “initiative of the government of Brazil and the > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)” is exactly > as accurate as it is to put ICANN first, regardless of whose idea is > was initially. > > I think that there are several good reasons for mentioning the > government of Brazil first: > > * While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an > event has come from ICANN, overall what has set this whole thing in > motion was the Brazilian president's speech at the UN GA. > > * We're writing to the Brazilian government, which is the party that > we as civil society need to communicate to in order to get included. > There is no risk of anyone from the ICANN side doing anything to lock > anyone out from this process. If civil society gets locked out, that > will be an action of government bureaucrats who either have unhealthy > connections to telecom business people with a pre-Internet mindset, or > who have a pre-Internet telecom mindset themselves. We're seeking to > prevent this by writing to someone with the power to prevent this from > happening. It is IMO only polite to mention the addressee's role in > the initiative first. If the letter is perceived as impolite or > even offensive, which could easily happen if a non-government entity > is mentioned more prominently or more respectfully than the > governmental addressee of the letter, that's certainly make it less > likely to achieve our goal. > > * Ultimately what counts in moving this plan forward is the power > to attract state actors to a high-level event. This power is in the > hands of the Brazilian government. From this perspective, I think > that the media reports are 100% accurate who put it as an initiative > of the Brazilian president that she has decided to undertake on the > basis of having informed herself well (which she did by means of > talking with someone of great and widely recognized specific > expertise in Internet governance). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 17:00:31 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:00:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: <20131013074237.55a716c1@quill> References: <20131013074237.55a716c1@quill> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:19:30 -0400: > >> I still haven't heard anything reality based to indicate why Brasil >> should be mentioned first in the first para. > > I have discussed this at length in my posting of Sat, 12 Oct 2013 > 08:27:39 +0200, which I'm copying below. > > If you wish to dismiss that entire posting as not “reality based”, > please point out for each of the three points on what basis you claim > that they are not “reality based”. It is the fact that they are not based in fact. You yourself admit: "While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an event has come from ICANN" > > In my view, what I have written is very much reality-based, and not at > all ideological. Look if what we are trying to do is to "speak truth to power", then the bare minimum we have to do is to speak the truth, no? Of course we are writing to Fadi and The Pres of Brazil, I would totally oppose a letter to Rousseff alone. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Oct 13 19:44:41 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 01:44:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Internet Policy] Rio 2014 agenda. Message-ID: The next presidential election in Brazil is 2014-10-5, less than a year from now. This gives some idea on the mediatic asset of the April conference. ICANN being a proxy of the US gov is obviously tainted by NSA all out surveillance. Was the committee on internet security unaware of that ? :-)) Then one should expect ICANN to try hard revamping its image to the point of stealing the show in Rio. For more details we have to wait & see. Louis On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Chip Sharp (chsharp) wrote: > Does anyone know what the ICANN/Rousseff plans actually are? > > It would be difficult to link to something as vague as what I've seen so > far. > > Chip > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > Like always the commission is a little bit late. But this time it is not > too late. Hope the EC will listen in Bali and help to move foreward after > Bali with the multistakeholder FoC process (discusses on Day 2 in the two > principle sessions), which now has to be linked to the ICANN/Rousseff > plans. This could lead indeed to a "New Internet Season Process" (NISP) > ;-))) > > > > wolfgang > > > > _______________________ > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 20:13:05 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:13:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: References: <20131013074237.55a716c1@quill> Message-ID: At 23:00 13/10/2013, McTim wrote: >Of course we are writing to Fadi and The Pres of Brazil, I would >totally oppose a letter to Rousseff alone. I definitly see no reason why we would have anything to say to Fadi. ICANN wants to be a monopoly, opposing enhanced cooperation, fostering competition among its stakeholders (its by-laws), and serving multilateralism (GAC). As long as Fadi does not publish that he supports the technical implications of the ICP-3 ICANN's own document what do you want to tell him. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 20:16:10 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:16:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Oct 13 20:20:45 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 00:20:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: <20131013074237.55a716c1@quill> References: ,<20131013074237.55a716c1@quill> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284D15@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 for Norbert, since reality is: Brazil is host. Really no need at this point to include Fadi as addressee when IGC is passing a note to a head of state. No doubt - he'll get the memo anyway : ) Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 1:42 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim Cc: avri doria Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text McTim wrote Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:19:30 -0400: > I still haven't heard anything reality based to indicate why Brasil > should be mentioned first in the first para. I have discussed this at length in my posting of Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:27:39 +0200, which I'm copying below. If you wish to dismiss that entire posting as not “reality based”, please point out for each of the three points on what basis you claim that they are not “reality based”. In my view, what I have written is very much reality-based, and not at all ideological. Greetings, Norbert :: From: Norbert Bollow :: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, McTim :: Cc: JFC Morfin , Anriette Esterhuysen :: , Ian Peter :: Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus :: process Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:27:39 +0200 :: :: McTim wrote: :: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin :: > wrote: :: [..] :: > What I want is to speak the truth. :: > :: > As you yourself said above: :: > :: > > "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by :: > > Fadi and accepted by Dilma." :: :: Let's use language that credits both ICANN and Brazil for the :: initiative, and which mentions the government of Brazil in the more :: prominent first spot. :: :: Logically, saying “initiative of the government of Brazil and the :: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)” is :: exactly as accurate as it is to put ICANN first, regardless of whose :: idea is was initially. :: :: I think that there are several good reasons for mentioning the :: government of Brazil first: :: :: * While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an :: event has come from ICANN, overall what has set this whole thing :: in motion was the Brazilian president's speech at the UN GA. :: :: * We're writing to the Brazilian government, which is the party that :: we as civil society need to communicate to in order to get :: included. There is no risk of anyone from the ICANN side doing :: anything to lock anyone out from this process. If civil society :: gets locked out, that will be an action of government bureaucrats :: who either have unhealthy connections to telecom business people :: with a pre-Internet mindset, or who have a pre-Internet telecom :: mindset themselves. We're seeking to prevent this by writing to :: someone with the power to prevent this from happening. It is IMO :: only polite to mention the addressee's role in the initiative :: first. If the letter is perceived as impolite or even offensive, :: which could easily happen if a non-government entity is mentioned :: more prominently or more respectfully than the governmental :: addressee of the letter, that's certainly make it less likely to :: achieve our goal. :: :: * Ultimately what counts in moving this plan forward is the power :: to attract state actors to a high-level event. This power is in the :: hands of the Brazilian government. From this perspective, I think :: that the media reports are 100% accurate who put it as an :: initiative of the Brazilian president that she has decided to :: undertake on the basis of having informed herself well (which she :: did by means of talking with someone of great and widely recognized :: specific expertise in Internet governance). :: :: Greetings, :: Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 20:43:23 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:43:23 +1200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284BDF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20131012082739.5ac8c2bb@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284BDF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: excellent point Lee. Well received. On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Sala, > > "ask for the scope of such a meeting and find out intended objectives" is > I suggest wrong tone; cs is not a supplicant but a player which can help > set the agenda and define the scope and objectives. > > But yes certainly learning more of current status of planning over a cup > of coffee is a good move. > > Lee > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta > Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:02 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; JFC Morfin; Anriette > Esterhuysen; Ian Peter > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process > > My personal view is to omit from credit neither organization nor > nation. Civil society is already on record via the previous letter. > > We need to stick to alerting them of the need for inclusion and civil > society participation. This will give is a neutral position. At this stage, > civil society needs to be neutral until we are fully aware of the scope of > such a meeting. > > What certainly needs to happen is that we need to ask for the scope of > such a meeting and find out intended objectives. We could also secure a > meeting in Brazil where we could discuss this informally over coffee in > Bali. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Oct 12, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > McTim wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> [..] > >> What I want is to speak the truth. > >> > >> As you yourself said above: > >> > >>> "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by Fadi > >>> and accepted by Dilma." > > > > Let's use language that credits both ICANN and Brazil for the > > initiative, and which mentions the government of Brazil in the more > > prominent first spot. > > > > Logically, saying “initiative of the government of Brazil and the > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)” is exactly > > as accurate as it is to put ICANN first, regardless of whose idea is > > was initially. > > > > I think that there are several good reasons for mentioning the > > government of Brazil first: > > > > * While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an > > event has come from ICANN, overall what has set this whole thing in > > motion was the Brazilian president's speech at the UN GA. > > > > * We're writing to the Brazilian government, which is the party that > > we as civil society need to communicate to in order to get included. > > There is no risk of anyone from the ICANN side doing anything to lock > > anyone out from this process. If civil society gets locked out, that > > will be an action of government bureaucrats who either have unhealthy > > connections to telecom business people with a pre-Internet mindset, or > > who have a pre-Internet telecom mindset themselves. We're seeking to > > prevent this by writing to someone with the power to prevent this from > > happening. It is IMO only polite to mention the addressee's role in > > the initiative first. If the letter is perceived as impolite or > > even offensive, which could easily happen if a non-government entity > > is mentioned more prominently or more respectfully than the > > governmental addressee of the letter, that's certainly make it less > > likely to achieve our goal. > > > > * Ultimately what counts in moving this plan forward is the power > > to attract state actors to a high-level event. This power is in the > > hands of the Brazilian government. From this perspective, I think > > that the media reports are 100% accurate who put it as an initiative > > of the Brazilian president that she has decided to undertake on the > > basis of having informed herself well (which she did by means of > > talking with someone of great and widely recognized specific > > expertise in Internet governance). > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Sun Oct 13 23:50:10 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:50:10 +0800 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction Message-ID: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next few days for the IGF - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best view - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as to cost, through - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is the free APEC airport wifi :) Hope these tips are helpful Robert Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 13 23:53:44 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:53:44 +1200 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on Saturday night. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next > few days for the IGF > > - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best > view > > - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but > construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller > - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me > - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through > customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport > - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and > 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as > to cost, through > - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is > the free APEC airport wifi :) > > Hope these tips are helpful > > Robert > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 14 00:02:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:32:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <141b520ed40.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Sims are cheap and easily available The visa rate probably varies depending on your country --srs (htc one x) On 14 October 2013 9:23:44 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. > > I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be > curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach > Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on > Saturday night. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > > Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next > > few days for the IGF > > > > - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best > > view > > > > - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but > > construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller > > - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me > > - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through > > customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport > > - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and > > 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as > > to cost, through > > - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is > > the free APEC airport wifi :) > > > > Hope these tips are helpful > > > > Robert > > > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > > > -- > > R. Guerra > > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> > > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Mon Oct 14 00:03:30 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:03:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <-2748787435333880351@unknownmsgid> Sala, Likely the visa on arrival fee varies depending on nationality :) Forgot to add that do ask others to share info when they arrive and any tips/recommendations people may have about Bali. Looks like there are two hashtags being used for the event - #igf2013 and #igf13 . Suggest #igf2013 be used, as it is the one members of the national organizing committee are using. In the past I have tried to setup a group skype channel. I won't do so this year as am decommissioning the use of Skype in favour of more open standards (such as XMPP) Suggest use of jabber compatible client (which is available for all platforms) Recommend Adium (Mac os), and chat secure (ios). Likely there are equivalents for other platforms Regards Robert Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On Oct 14, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on Saturday night. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next > few days for the IGF > > - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best > view > > - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but > construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller > - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me > - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through > customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport > - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and > 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as > to cost, through > - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is > the free APEC airport wifi :) > > Hope these tips are helpful > > Robert > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Mon Oct 14 00:04:12 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:04:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <13030407.2008.1381723356096.JavaMail.mobile-sync@icbm17> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <13030407.2008.1381723356096.JavaMail.mobile-sync@icbm17> Message-ID: <-284179083999539889@unknownmsgid> Any recommendations on which provider provides the best data (value for $) Robert Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Sims are cheap and easily available The visa rate probably varies depending on your country --srs (htc one x) On 14 October 2013 9:23:44 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on Saturday night. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next > few days for the IGF > > - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best > view > > - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but > construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller > - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me > - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through > customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport > - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and > 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as > to cost, through > - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is > the free APEC airport wifi :) > > Hope these tips are helpful > > Robert > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Oct 14 00:20:15 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:20:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <-2748787435333880351@unknownmsgid> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <-2748787435333880351@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <525B70FF.2000100@ciroap.org> On 14/10/13 12:03, Robert Guerra wrote: > In the past I have tried to setup a group skype channel. I won't do so > this year as am decommissioning the use of Skype in favour of more > open standards (such as XMPP) Suggest use of jabber compatible client > (which is available for all platforms) > > Recommend Adium (Mac os), and chat secure (ios). Likely there are > equivalents for other platforms For the past several years I have made both IRC and Jabber chats available for the IGF, but almost nobody used them. There is even a web interface at http://igf-online.net/chat.php. If I was lucky, one or two other people might use it during the entire IGF. So I have not touched it for this year, because my priorities are focussed on things that people are making more likely to make use of. (For the same reason, and for the first time since 2007, I haven't provided a subscribable iCalendar schedule for the IGF this year - I don't know if anyone used it, and it was taking a lot of time.) Having said that, it's still working and the instructions to connect using either Jabber or IRC are given at http://igf-online.net/chat.php. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 14 00:23:48 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:53:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <-2748787435333880351@unknownmsgid> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <-2748787435333880351@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <141b53488c8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Pidgin is an excellent cross platform client --srs (htc one x) On 14 October 2013 9:33:30 AM Robert Guerra wrote: > Sala, > > Likely the visa on arrival fee varies depending on nationality :) > > Forgot to add that do ask others to share info when they arrive and any > tips/recommendations people may have about Bali. > > Looks like there are two hashtags being used for the event - #igf2013 and > #igf13 . Suggest #igf2013 be used, as it is the one members of the national > organizing committee are using. > > In the past I have tried to setup a group skype channel. I won't do so this > year as am decommissioning the use of Skype in favour of more open > standards (such as XMPP) Suggest use of jabber compatible client (which is > available for all platforms) > > Recommend Adium (Mac os), and chat secure (ios). Likely there are > equivalents for other platforms > > Regards > > Robert > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On Oct 14, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. > > I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be > curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach > Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on > Saturday night. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > > Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next > > few days for the IGF > > > > - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best > > view > > > > - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but > > construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller > > - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me > > - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through > > customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport > > - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and > > 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as > > to cost, through > > - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is > > the free APEC airport wifi :) > > > > Hope these tips are helpful > > > > Robert > > > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > > > -- > > R. Guerra > > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> > > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 14 00:26:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:56:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <-284179083999539889@unknownmsgid> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <13030407.2008.1381723356096.JavaMail.mobile-sync@icbm17> <-284179083999539889@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <0ECE8D0E-6974-407E-95AC-7FA1F47CF56C@hserus.net> Take your pick http://www.prepaidgsm.net/en/indonesia.html --srs (iPad) > On 14-Oct-2013, at 9:34, Robert Guerra wrote: > > Any recommendations on which provider provides the best data (value for $) > > Robert > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > >> On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Sims are cheap and easily available >> >> The visa rate probably varies depending on your country >> >> --srs (htc one x) >>> On 14 October 2013 9:23:44 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >>> >>> Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. >>> >>> I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on Saturday night. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>> Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next few days for the IGF >>>> >>>> - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best view >>>> >>>> - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller >>>> - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me >>>> - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport >>>> - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as to cost, through >>>> - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is the free APEC airport wifi :) >>>> >>>> Hope these tips are helpful >>>> >>>> Robert >>>> >>>> Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> R. Guerra >>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 00:31:07 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:31:07 +1100 Subject: [governance] DC FoE meeting at Bali IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Sala. I have also just set up a Twitter account for the Dynamic Coalition, please follow us here if you're on Twitter: @DC_FoE I've just Tweeted a story about the West Papuan/Indonesian/Australian situation on free expression. Angela On 13 October 2013 22:48, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Angela, > > Thanks for the update. In case people are not aware of the West Papua and > Indonesia conflict: > > > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/west-papua-tony-abbott-australia > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Oct 13, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Angela Daly wrote: > > The Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on > the INternet will meet next Monday, 21 October (Day 0), at the IGF in Bali. > > We will have three guest speakers at the meeting, namely: > > Xianhong Hu from UNESCO, who will be talking about UNESCO's work in > promoting online freedom. > > Andrew Puddephatt from Global Partners Digital, who will be presenting on > the challenges and opportunities of the democratisation of free expression > brought about by the Internet and an assessment of the current climate. > > Sarah Clarke from PEN International, who will speak about the impact of > global surveillance on writers and journalists. > > The meeting will take place from 1600 to 1800 in Uluwatu 5. > > We look forward to seeing many of you there. > > Angela > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Oct 14 00:31:52 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 01:31:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <0ECE8D0E-6974-407E-95AC-7FA1F47CF56C@hserus.net> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <13030407.2008.1381723356096.JavaMail.mobile-sync@icbm17> <-284179083999539889@unknownmsgid> <0ECE8D0E-6974-407E-95AC-7FA1F47CF56C@hserus.net> Message-ID: Thanx! If anyone has taxi infos for midnight girly travelers, would be great! On Oct 14, 2013 1:28 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > Take your pick > > http://www.prepaidgsm.net/en/indonesia.html > > --srs (iPad) > > On 14-Oct-2013, at 9:34, Robert Guerra wrote: > > Any recommendations on which provider provides the best data (value for $) > > Robert > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > Sims are cheap and easily available > > The visa rate probably varies depending on your country > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 14 October 2013 9:23:44 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. > > I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be > curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach > Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on > Saturday night. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next >> few days for the IGF >> >> - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the >> best view >> >> - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but >> construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller >> - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me >> - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass >> through customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport >> - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and >> 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as >> to cost, through >> - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is >> the free APEC airport wifi :) >> >> Hope these tips are helpful >> >> Robert >> >> Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 00:44:55 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:44:55 +1200 Subject: [governance] DC FoE meeting at Bali IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Angela. I will follow on Twitter. Thank you also for tweeting the story about Indonesia/West Papua etc. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Angela Daly wrote: > Thanks Sala. > > I have also just set up a Twitter account for the Dynamic Coalition, > please follow us here if you're on Twitter: @DC_FoE > > I've just Tweeted a story about the West Papuan/Indonesian/Australian > situation on free expression. > > Angela > > > On 13 October 2013 22:48, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Angela, >> >> Thanks for the update. In case people are not aware of the West Papua >> and Indonesia conflict: >> >> >> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/west-papua-tony-abbott-australia >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Angela Daly wrote: >> >> The Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media >> on the INternet will meet next Monday, 21 October (Day 0), at the IGF in >> Bali. >> >> We will have three guest speakers at the meeting, namely: >> >> Xianhong Hu from UNESCO, who will be talking about UNESCO's work in >> promoting online freedom. >> >> Andrew Puddephatt from Global Partners Digital, who will be presenting on >> the challenges and opportunities of the democratisation of free expression >> brought about by the Internet and an assessment of the current climate. >> >> Sarah Clarke from PEN International, who will speak about the impact of >> global surveillance on writers and journalists. >> >> The meeting will take place from 1600 to 1800 in Uluwatu 5. >> >> We look forward to seeing many of you there. >> >> Angela >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 00:46:32 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:46:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <141b520ed40.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <141b520ed40.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: My Indonesian friend recommends Simpati as it has good coverage in Bali and is cheap too. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Sims are cheap and easily available > > The visa rate probably varies depending on your country > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 14 October 2013 9:23:44 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" ** wrote: > > Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. > > I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be > curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach > Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on > Saturday night. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next >> few days for the IGF >> >> - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the >> best view >> >> - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but >> construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller >> - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me >> - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass >> through customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport >> - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and >> 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as >> to cost, through >> - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is >> the free APEC airport wifi :) >> >> Hope these tips are helpful >> >> Robert >> >> Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 14 00:52:17 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:22:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284D15@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<20131013074237.55a716c1@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284D15@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <525B7881.5090403@itforchange.net> If my reading is correct, we are still in the text suggestion phase (or just about getting out of it), especially with regard to Avri and McTim's suggestions for changes to the salutation part, and not in an actual 'consensus calling' phase... In the circumstances, I am not sure why some people have alleged that a consensus call is being rushed. Just because one of the co-coordinator also has views on the subject, it is wrong to keep hitting him to earn some political points. Well, I think, lets just give it up. The level of hair splitting and nuancing has gone beyond human readable levels - over what was just a proposal to welcome a rather path-breaking initiative, and proposing that civil society would want to be an equal partner in it. As for the BB meeting logic - it doesnt convince me for many reasons. What if there wasn't a BB meeting in a few days? BB meetings have a very different configuration than IGC, and as I said, I would not want to privilege one over the other. They can both do their work, and should be able to.. parminder On Monday 14 October 2013 05:50 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > +1 for Norbert, since reality is: Brazil is host. > > Really no need at this point to include Fadi as addressee when IGC is passing a note to a head of state. > > No doubt - he'll get the memo anyway : ) > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 1:42 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim > Cc: avri doria > Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL Re: Draft letter text > > McTim wrote Sat, 12 Oct 2013 21:19:30 -0400: > >> I still haven't heard anything reality based to indicate why Brasil >> should be mentioned first in the first para. > I have discussed this at length in my posting of Sat, 12 Oct 2013 > 08:27:39 +0200, which I'm copying below. > > If you wish to dismiss that entire posting as not “reality based”, > please point out for each of the three points on what basis you claim > that they are not “reality based”. > > In my view, what I have written is very much reality-based, and not at > all ideological. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > :: From: Norbert Bollow > :: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, McTim > :: Cc: JFC Morfin , Anriette Esterhuysen > :: , Ian Peter > :: Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus > :: process Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:27:39 +0200 > :: > :: McTim wrote: > :: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin > :: > wrote: > :: [..] > :: > What I want is to speak the truth. > :: > > :: > As you yourself said above: > :: > > :: > > "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by > :: > > Fadi and accepted by Dilma." > :: > :: Let's use language that credits both ICANN and Brazil for the > :: initiative, and which mentions the government of Brazil in the more > :: prominent first spot. > :: > :: Logically, saying “initiative of the government of Brazil and the > :: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)” is > :: exactly as accurate as it is to put ICANN first, regardless of whose > :: idea is was initially. > :: > :: I think that there are several good reasons for mentioning the > :: government of Brazil first: > :: > :: * While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an > :: event has come from ICANN, overall what has set this whole thing > :: in motion was the Brazilian president's speech at the UN GA. > :: > :: * We're writing to the Brazilian government, which is the party that > :: we as civil society need to communicate to in order to get > :: included. There is no risk of anyone from the ICANN side doing > :: anything to lock anyone out from this process. If civil society > :: gets locked out, that will be an action of government bureaucrats > :: who either have unhealthy connections to telecom business people > :: with a pre-Internet mindset, or who have a pre-Internet telecom > :: mindset themselves. We're seeking to prevent this by writing to > :: someone with the power to prevent this from happening. It is IMO > :: only polite to mention the addressee's role in the initiative > :: first. If the letter is perceived as impolite or even offensive, > :: which could easily happen if a non-government entity is mentioned > :: more prominently or more respectfully than the governmental > :: addressee of the letter, that's certainly make it less likely to > :: achieve our goal. > :: > :: * Ultimately what counts in moving this plan forward is the power > :: to attract state actors to a high-level event. This power is in the > :: hands of the Brazilian government. From this perspective, I think > :: that the media reports are 100% accurate who put it as an > :: initiative of the Brazilian president that she has decided to > :: undertake on the basis of having informed herself well (which she > :: did by means of talking with someone of great and widely recognized > :: specific expertise in Internet governance). > :: > :: Greetings, > :: Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 14 00:53:31 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:53:31 +1100 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid><13030407.2008.1381723356096.JavaMail.mobile-sync@icbm17><-284179083999539889@unknownmsgid><0ECE8D0E-6974-407E-95AC-7FA1F47CF56C@hserus.net> Message-ID: A few Bali hints for people arriving early - Joana, there are taxis that charge you too much, but Bali is very cheap. If the fee is reasonable get your hotel to organise a pick up for you to be safer. Not sure whether all visas are same cost ($USD25 for me) , but I think all are in US dollars. So to save time at airport bring some US dollars cash with you. If you want to experience Bali, get out of Nusa Dua which is basically almost a gated community. Avoid Kuta unless you want to spend your time with drunken Australians. If you want an adventure, google the bike rides from the volcano. Downhill all the way, great ride, easy pedalling. If you have time experience Ubud at the artistic centre and some of the north of the island. Sanur is close by and a quieter beach/shopping alternative to Kuta. Looking forward to seeing everyone and wish I had organised more time to experience Bali again. When you get away from the Kuta/Nusa Dua areas you can experience a very beautiful animist culture which I hope everyone gets some experience of. Ian Peter From: Joana Varon Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 3:31 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Bali airport construction Thanx! If anyone has taxi infos for midnight girly travelers, would be great! On Oct 14, 2013 1:28 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: Take your pick http://www.prepaidgsm.net/en/indonesia.html --srs (iPad) On 14-Oct-2013, at 9:34, Robert Guerra wrote: Any recommendations on which provider provides the best data (value for $) Robert Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Sims are cheap and easily available The visa rate probably varies depending on your country --srs (htc one x) On 14 October 2013 9:23:44 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on Saturday night. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next few days for the IGF - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best view - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as to cost, through - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is the free APEC airport wifi :) Hope these tips are helpful Robert Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 14 01:03:12 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:33:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <13030407.2008.1381723356096.JavaMail.mobile-sync@icbm17> <-284179083999539889@unknownmsgid> <0ECE8D0E-6974-407E-95AC-7FA1F47CF56C@hserus.net> Message-ID: <141b5589740.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Bali is normally safe though you might want to have your hotel arrange a pickup, though that would cost two or three times the normal fare to be sure. --srs (htc one x) On 14 October 2013 10:01:52 AM Joana Varon wrote: > Thanx! > If anyone has taxi infos for midnight girly travelers, would be great! > On Oct 14, 2013 1:28 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > > > Take your pick > > > > http://www.prepaidgsm.net/en/indonesia.html > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 14-Oct-2013, at 9:34, Robert Guerra wrote: > > > > Any recommendations on which provider provides the best data (value for $) > > > > Robert > > > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > > > -- > > R. Guerra > > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> > > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > > > On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > > > Sims are cheap and easily available > > > > The visa rate probably varies depending on your country > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 14 October 2013 9:23:44 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > > > Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. > > > > I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be > > curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach > > Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on > > Saturday night. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > > >> Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next > >> few days for the IGF > >> > >> - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the > >> best view > >> > >> - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but > >> construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller > >> - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me > >> - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass > >> through customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport > >> - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and > >> 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as > >> to cost, through > >> - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is > >> the free APEC airport wifi :) > >> > >> Hope these tips are helpful > >> > >> Robert > >> > >> Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > >> > >> -- > >> R. Guerra > >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> > >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 14 01:04:22 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 10:34:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid><13030407.2008.1381723356096.JavaMail.mobile-sync@icbm17><-284179083999539889@unknownmsgid><0ECE8D0E-6974-407E-95AC-7FA1F47CF56C@hserus.net> Message-ID: <141b559b468.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Stores and taxis are perfectly happy to take usd though you run the risk of being overcharged as a tourist --srs (htc one x) On 14 October 2013 10:23:31 AM "Ian Peter" wrote: > A few Bali hints for people arriving early - > > Joana, there are taxis that charge you too much, but Bali is very cheap. If > the fee is reasonable get your hotel to organise a pick up for you to be safer. > > Not sure whether all visas are same cost ($USD25 for me) , but I think all > are in US dollars. So to save time at airport bring some US dollars cash > with you. > > If you want to experience Bali, get out of Nusa Dua which is basically > almost a gated community. Avoid Kuta unless you want to spend your time > with drunken Australians. > > If you want an adventure, google the bike rides from the volcano. Downhill > all the way, great ride, easy pedalling. If you have time experience Ubud > at the artistic centre and some of the north of the island. Sanur is close > by and a quieter beach/shopping alternative to Kuta. > > Looking forward to seeing everyone and wish I had organised more time to > experience Bali again. When you get away from the Kuta/Nusa Dua areas you > can experience a very beautiful animist culture which I hope everyone gets > some experience of. > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Joana Varon Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 3:31 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; > Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Bali airport construction > > Thanx! > If anyone has taxi infos for midnight girly travelers, would be great! > On Oct 14, 2013 1:28 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > > Take your pick > > http://www.prepaidgsm.net/en/indonesia.html > > --srs (iPad) > > On 14-Oct-2013, at 9:34, Robert Guerra wrote: > > > Any recommendations on which provider provides the best data (value for $) > > Robert > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Sims are cheap and easily available > > The visa rate probably varies depending on your country > > --srs (htc one x) > > > On 14 October 2013 9:23:44 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. > > > I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be > curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach > Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be there on > Saturday night. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next few > days for the IGF > > - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best view > > - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but > construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller > - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me > - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through > customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport > - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and 1 > or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as > to cost, through > - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is > the free APEC airport wifi :) > > Hope these tips are helpful > > Robert > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 14 02:41:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:41:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] OBJECTION ACK on draft letter Message-ID: <20131014084125.23140dd5@quill> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Just to state officially what is in fact obvious: In view of the objections that have been raised, IGC clearly does not have consensus to send the current draft letter, nor does there seem to be a way forward to reach consensus by means of the kind of minor changes that could reasonably be undertaken at this late point in time in relation to the timeframe implied in the original idea of sending a letter early this week. So this particular consensus process ends here with the result of “no consensus”. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 14 04:19:03 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:49:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] OBJECTION ACK on draft letter In-Reply-To: <20131014084125.23140dd5@quill> References: <20131014084125.23140dd5@quill> Message-ID: <525BA8F7.2090008@itforchange.net> Unfortunate, that ICANN - which, with its US oversight, is considered the symbol of global IG status quo - could make what looks like a real move forward, but civil society demurs. May be then the mantle of being the primary conservative and status quo ist force in global IG can now be taken up by the civil society... parminder On Monday 14 October 2013 12:11 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Just to state officially what is in fact obvious: In view of the > objections that have been raised, IGC clearly does not have > consensus to send the current draft letter, nor does there seem > to be a way forward to reach consensus by means of the kind of > minor changes that could reasonably be undertaken at this late > point in time in relation to the timeframe implied in the original > idea of sending a letter early this week. > > So this particular consensus process ends here with the result of “no > consensus”. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 14 05:17:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:17:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Social dynamics of consensus processes (was Re: Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host...) In-Reply-To: References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> Message-ID: <20131014111725.595c5217@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: > Dear Norbert, > > I am afraid that repeating your position and stating that you will > repeat it again for the last time is not a consensus but rather > influence :-). Actually it was Anja and not I who used that particular rhetoric step. But it is true that I have attempted to influence the IGC by explaining why in my opinion a certain kind of action should have been taken. I have tried to keep that kind of argumentation (which did not involve me wearing the “coordinator hat”) clearly separated from my role in running the consensus process (for which I was careful to explicitly state at what points I considered myself to be wearing the “coordinatinator hat”). > Also, stating that your opponents have to put their > political situation at risk if they wish to oppose you, while you > don't risk yours, sounds like an abuse of a dominant position !!! > Ouhaou! This does not sound like you. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus : Consensus decision-making is > a group decision making process that seeks the consent of all > participants. If that process of seeking the consent of all participants is to be a structured process in any way, it necessarily must involve a structured way of objecting, or choosing not to make use of the opportunity to object. I don't know how much experience you have in participating in various variants of consensus processes of various organizations that practice consensus based decision-making. In my experience, except sometimes for very simple decisions, I'm never happy about all aspects of a proposed decision. When a text is being drafted, a consensus process cannot work if everyone wants to insist that every aspect of the text must be perfect from their perspective. Even if in a large group just two people with differing perspectives insist that the every aspect of the text must be perfect from their perspective, that must necessarily result in the consensus process breaking down. There is in many groups however an informal social dynamic which prevents that fact from preventing all consensus decision making. This social dynamic is based on the social effects (in particular credibility effects) of effectively stopping a consensus process. These effects depend on whether the justification for stopping the consensus process is perceived as valid by one's peers in the group. In a well-functioning group, no one has a dominant position in this kind of peer-to-peer group dynamics. In view of the obvious fact that there is no shortage of people who publicly disagree with at least some of my views, I think that it is pretty clear that I certainly don't have a dominant position in this sense. If on the other hand, the term “dominant position” may have been meant simply as a reference to running a consensus process: Well unless consensus emerges spontaneously (which can sometimes happen), there is no way to determine whether consensus can be reached short of making a serious attempt to reach consensus by means of a somehow structured process. Doing so does not give anyone a “dominant position” because, by the very nature of consensus processes, everyone has the power to stop the process by means of a timely objection. Of course it happens in every group which practices consensus decision making that some people don't understand what is going on, don't follow instructions (which may be caused by the instructions not being clear enough, but it can also be caused by people not having read the instructions in the first place), etc, etc. In particular newcomers need to be taught that they can't legitimately object to the outcome of a consensus process if they're not willing to risk their credibility on objecting in the way that matters, which is by voicing an explicit objection of the kind that can potentially cause the consensus process to end with the result of “no consensus”. Of course (and maybe it would have prevented you from misunderstanding me if I had said so explicitly), in making such an objection, the person who takes this step does not only risk to lose credibility (in the eyes of those who consider the step to be unreasonable), but he or she can also gain credibility (in the eyes of those who consider the step of objecting to be well-justified, for example because compelling arguments are given). Greetings, Norbert P.S. The IGC Charter foresees that under certain conditions IGC can make decisions on the basis of rough consensus instead of by consensus. The social dynamics of rough consensus processes are different from the social dynamics of consensus processes; the above specifically refers to consensus processes, not to rough consensus processes, although there are of course similarities. I'd like to remark though that in my view, if the IGC Charter's rules on the decision-making process are properly interpreted, the rule about rough consensus decision making is not going to be used except in situations where the rough consensus is very obvious, such as e.g. if very clearly almost everyone wants a decision and just one person is “being difficult” in a way that from almost everyone's perspective is clearly unreasonable. One good point about the process described in the IGC Charter is that there is a 48 hours rule specifically for the rough consensus decision process which ensures that rough consensus will not be declared hastily. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Oct 14 05:16:46 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:16:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] USA FREEDOM ACT? References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320CB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.cato.org/events/nsa-surveillance-what-we-know-what-do-about-it Sensenbrenner proposes "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-Collection, and Online Monitoring Act" (USA FREEDOM Act). Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Oct 14 06:39:26 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:39:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] OBJECTION ACK on draft letter Message-ID: Those skirmishes are an appetizer for more substantial wrangles to occur between ICANN and CS. Louis - - - On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM, parminder wrote: > > Unfortunate, that ICANN - which, with its US oversight, is considered the > symbol of global IG status quo - could make what looks like a real move > forward, but civil society demurs. May be then the mantle of being the > primary conservative and status quo ist force in global IG can now be taken > up by the civil society... parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 14 06:58:58 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:28:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] OBJECTION ACK on draft letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <525BCE72.5050702@itforchange.net> On Monday 14 October 2013 04:09 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Those skirmishes are an appetizer for more substantial wrangles to > occur between ICANN and CS. > Substantial wrangles between ICANN and CS? Are you sure :). Which CS are you referring to? > Louis > - - - > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > Unfortunate, that ICANN - which, with its US oversight, is > considered the symbol of global IG status quo - could make what > looks like a real move forward, but civil society demurs. May be > then the mantle of being the primary conservative and status quo > ist force in global IG can now be taken up by the civil society... > parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Oct 14 08:11:42 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:11:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] USA FREEDOM ACT? Message-ID: Excellent speeches. We would like to hear similar bold propositions in Europe, if we had other than boneless politicians. Louis - - - On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > FYI > > http://www.cato.org/events/nsa-surveillance-what-we-know-what-do-about-it > > Sensenbrenner proposes "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling > Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-Collection, and Online Monitoring > Act" (USA FREEDOM Act). > > Wolfgang > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lucabelli at hotmail.it Mon Oct 14 10:23:42 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:23:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] DC on Network Neutrality @ IGF Message-ID: Dear all, Please find below the outline of the Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network neutrality (DC) as well as the draft agenda of the DC meeting that will take place at the IGF, on 25 October, from 9 to 10:30, in room 7. After a brief introduction and a keynote, the DC meeting will be structured as an open and interactive debate. The authors of the position-papers, which have been selected for the DC Report, will take part to a roundtable aimed at analysing the content of the DC Report and, particularly, discussing the Model Framework on Network Neutrality that has been elaborated by the DC over the last three months.The Report will be officially released at the DC meeting and then will be published on the DC website under CC Licenses.Please, do not hesitate to contact me (in private) should you have any questions or suggestions pertaining to the aforementioned initiatives.All the best, Luca THE IMPORTANCE OF NETWORK NEUTRALITY FOR THE INTERNET OF TOMORROW REPORT OF THE DYNAMIC COALITION ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY ForewordPreface (Marietje Schaake)Introduction – Framing the Network Neutrality Debate: a Multi-Stakeholder Approach towards a Policy Blue-print (Primavera De Filippi and Luca Belli)Network Neutrality and Human Rights: An Input Paper (Luca Belli)The Importance of Internet Neutrality to Protecting Human Rights Online (Andrew McDiarmid & Matthew Shears)Net Neutrality from a Public Sphere Perspective (Francesca Musiani & Maria Löblich)Net Neutrality: Ending Network Discrimination in Europe (Raegan MacDonald & Giusy Cannella)Network Neutrality under the Lens of Risk Management (Alejandro Pisanty)Net Neutrality and Quality of Service (Louis Pouzin)Net Neutrality: Past Policy, Present Proposals, Future Regulation? (Chris Marsden)Privatised Online Enforcement Series (Joe McNamee)A Discourse-Principle Approach to Network Neutrality: A Model Framework and its Application (Luca Belli & Matthijs van Bergen)Conclusion MEETING AGENDA · Brief introduction (Luca Belli 5 minutes): · Keynote (Chris Marsden 10 min):· Interactive debate involving the DC-Report authors (or their spokespeople) and the attendees (50 min)· Participatory analysis of the Model Framework on Network Neutrality (25 min) · Conclusion and Next Steps Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 10:30:58 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:30:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] DC on Network Neutrality @ IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Thanks Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2013/10/14 Luca Belli > Dear all, **** > > Please find below the outline of the Report of the Dynamic Coalition on > Network neutrality (DC) as well as the draft agenda of the DC meeting that > will take place at the IGF, on 25 October, from 9 to 10:30, in room 7. > > After a brief introduction and a keynote, the DC meeting will be > structured as an open and interactive debate. The authors of the > position-papers, which have been selected for the DC Report, will take part > to a roundtable aimed at analysing the content of the DC Report and, > particularly, discussing the Model Framework on Network Neutralitythat has been elaborated by the DC over the last three months. > > The Report will be officially released at the DC meeting and then will be > published on the DC website under CC Licenses. > > Please, do not hesitate to contact me (in private) should you have any > questions or suggestions pertaining to the aforementioned initiatives. > > All the best, > > Luca > > > > > THE IMPORTANCE OF NETWORK NEUTRALITY FOR THE INTERNET OF TOMORROW**** > > REPORT OF THE DYNAMIC COALITION ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY **** > > > > > - Foreword > - Preface (Marietje Schaake) > - Introduction – Framing the Network Neutrality Debate: a > Multi-Stakeholder Approach towards a Policy Blue-print (Primavera De > Filippi and Luca Belli) > - Network Neutrality and Human Rights: An Input Paper (Luca Belli) > - The Importance of Internet Neutrality to Protecting Human Rights > Online (Andrew McDiarmid & Matthew Shears) > - Net Neutrality from a Public Sphere Perspective (Francesca Musiani & > Maria Löblich) > - Net Neutrality: Ending Network Discrimination in Europe (Raegan > MacDonald & Giusy Cannella) > - Network Neutrality under the Lens of Risk Management (Alejandro > Pisanty) > - Net Neutrality and Quality of Service (Louis Pouzin) > - Net Neutrality: Past Policy, Present Proposals, Future Regulation? > (Chris Marsden) > - Privatised Online Enforcement Series (Joe McNamee) > - A Discourse-Principle Approach to Network Neutrality: A Model > Framework and its Application (Luca Belli & Matthijs van Bergen) > > > - Conclusion > > > > > > MEETING AGENDA **** > > · Brief introduction (Luca Belli 5 minutes): **** > > · Keynote (Chris Marsden 10 min):**** > > · Interactive debate involving the DC-Report authors (or their > spokespeople) and the attendees (50 min)**** > > · Participatory analysis of the Model Framework on Network > Neutrality (25 min) **** > > · Conclusion and Next Steps > > **** > > *Luca Belli * > ***Doctorant en Droit Public* > *CERSA,**Université **Panthéon-Assas* > *Sorbonne University * > * > * > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Mon Oct 14 11:18:47 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:18:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284BDF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20131012082739.5ac8c2bb@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284BDF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: IGC Folks - I have view on IGC sending a letter or not (as I'm on this list primarily as a informational resource to your efforts.) With respect to planning efforts for the Brazil/ICANN Summit, I am not aware of any activities at this time; if ARIN receives communications on same, I will forward it to this list (or ask that it be sent here if not able to forward it myself.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Oct 13, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: Sala, "ask for the scope of such a meeting and find out intended objectives" is I suggest wrong tone; cs is not a supplicant but a player which can help set the agenda and define the scope and objectives. But yes certainly learning more of current status of planning over a cup of coffee is a good move. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:02 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; JFC Morfin; Anriette Esterhuysen; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process My personal view is to omit from credit neither organization nor nation. Civil society is already on record via the previous letter. We need to stick to alerting them of the need for inclusion and civil society participation. This will give is a neutral position. At this stage, civil society needs to be neutral until we are fully aware of the scope of such a meeting. What certainly needs to happen is that we need to ask for the scope of such a meeting and find out intended objectives. We could also secure a meeting in Brazil where we could discuss this informally over coffee in Bali. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 12, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > McTim > wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin > wrote: >> [..] >> What I want is to speak the truth. >> >> As you yourself said above: >> >>> "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by Fadi >>> and accepted by Dilma." > > Let's use language that credits both ICANN and Brazil for the > initiative, and which mentions the government of Brazil in the more > prominent first spot. > > Logically, saying “initiative of the government of Brazil and the > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)” is exactly > as accurate as it is to put ICANN first, regardless of whose idea is > was initially. > > I think that there are several good reasons for mentioning the > government of Brazil first: > > * While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an > event has come from ICANN, overall what has set this whole thing in > motion was the Brazilian president's speech at the UN GA. > > * We're writing to the Brazilian government, which is the party that > we as civil society need to communicate to in order to get included. > There is no risk of anyone from the ICANN side doing anything to lock > anyone out from this process. If civil society gets locked out, that > will be an action of government bureaucrats who either have unhealthy > connections to telecom business people with a pre-Internet mindset, or > who have a pre-Internet telecom mindset themselves. We're seeking to > prevent this by writing to someone with the power to prevent this from > happening. It is IMO only polite to mention the addressee's role in > the initiative first. If the letter is perceived as impolite or > even offensive, which could easily happen if a non-government entity > is mentioned more prominently or more respectfully than the > governmental addressee of the letter, that's certainly make it less > likely to achieve our goal. > > * Ultimately what counts in moving this plan forward is the power > to attract state actors to a high-level event. This power is in the > hands of the Brazilian government. From this perspective, I think > that the media reports are 100% accurate who put it as an initiative > of the Brazilian president that she has decided to undertake on the > basis of having informed herself well (which she did by means of > talking with someone of great and widely recognized specific > expertise in Internet governance). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Mon Oct 14 11:22:29 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:22:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20131012082739.5ac8c2bb@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284BDF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3F3D3A6C-7727-4434-B0C9-C74902688D5E@arin.net> On Oct 14, 2013, at 11:18 AM, John Curran wrote: > IGC Folks - > > I have view on IGC sending a letter or not (as I'm on this list primarily as a > informational resource to your efforts.) Typo - should read: "I have _no_ view on IGC sending a letter or not" Mea culpa, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 14:50:54 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:50:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Strategic Planning Message-ID: It would be interesting to discuss how we can contribute more directly to ICANN strategic planning taking into consideration the recent developments involving Brazil. There are opportunities for CS engagement. See below. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09oct13-en.htm "To provide more opportunity for community consideration and public comment on a draft ICANN Vision and 5-year Strategic Plan, the development schedule has been extended to accommodate *two rounds of online public input, *and community discussions at the ICANN Buenos Aires (November 2013) and Singapore (March 2014) meetings." -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 14 15:27:32 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:27:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process In-Reply-To: References: <20131011172949.4ea56943@quill> <9878102BCBE1457698555E45B75562FF@Toshiba> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2847E5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <525856F0.8020209@apc.org> <525887d1.a2a8700a.0f9a.353fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20131012082739.5ac8c2bb@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B284BDF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0A335563-F218-4E73-81D4-1D211958B910@gmail.com> Thanks John. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:18 AM, John Curran wrote: > > IGC Folks - > > I have view on IGC sending a letter or not (as I'm on this list primarily as a > informational resource to your efforts.) > > With respect to planning efforts for the Brazil/ICANN Summit, I am not aware > of any activities at this time; if ARIN receives communications on same, I will > forward it to this list (or ask that it be sent here if not able to forward it myself.) > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > >> On Oct 13, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> Sala, >> >> "ask for the scope of such a meeting and find out intended objectives" is I suggest wrong tone; cs is not a supplicant but a player which can help set the agenda and define the scope and objectives. >> >> But yes certainly learning more of current status of planning over a cup of coffee is a good move. >> >> Lee >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:02 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; JFC Morfin; Anriette Esterhuysen; Ian Peter >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Draft letter text - IGC consensus process >> >> My personal view is to omit from credit neither organization nor nation. Civil society is already on record via the previous letter. >> >> We need to stick to alerting them of the need for inclusion and civil society participation. This will give is a neutral position. At this stage, civil society needs to be neutral until we are fully aware of the scope of such a meeting. >> >> What certainly needs to happen is that we need to ask for the scope of such a meeting and find out intended objectives. We could also secure a meeting in Brazil where we could discuss this informally over coffee in Bali. >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On Oct 12, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > >> > McTim wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> What I want is to speak the truth. >> >> >> >> As you yourself said above: >> >> >> >>> "It is exact that the summit was said to have been proposed by Fadi >> >>> and accepted by Dilma." >> > >> > Let's use language that credits both ICANN and Brazil for the >> > initiative, and which mentions the government of Brazil in the more >> > prominent first spot. >> > >> > Logically, saying “initiative of the government of Brazil and the >> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)” is exactly >> > as accurate as it is to put ICANN first, regardless of whose idea is >> > was initially. >> > >> > I think that there are several good reasons for mentioning the >> > government of Brazil first: >> > >> > * While the specific proposal of going forward by means of such an >> > event has come from ICANN, overall what has set this whole thing in >> > motion was the Brazilian president's speech at the UN GA. >> > >> > * We're writing to the Brazilian government, which is the party that >> > we as civil society need to communicate to in order to get included. >> > There is no risk of anyone from the ICANN side doing anything to lock >> > anyone out from this process. If civil society gets locked out, that >> > will be an action of government bureaucrats who either have unhealthy >> > connections to telecom business people with a pre-Internet mindset, or >> > who have a pre-Internet telecom mindset themselves. We're seeking to >> > prevent this by writing to someone with the power to prevent this from >> > happening. It is IMO only polite to mention the addressee's role in >> > the initiative first. If the letter is perceived as impolite or >> > even offensive, which could easily happen if a non-government entity >> > is mentioned more prominently or more respectfully than the >> > governmental addressee of the letter, that's certainly make it less >> > likely to achieve our goal. >> > >> > * Ultimately what counts in moving this plan forward is the power >> > to attract state actors to a high-level event. This power is in the >> > hands of the Brazilian government. From this perspective, I think >> > that the media reports are 100% accurate who put it as an initiative >> > of the Brazilian president that she has decided to undertake on the >> > basis of having informed herself well (which she did by means of >> > talking with someone of great and widely recognized specific >> > expertise in Internet governance). >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Oct 14 21:15:58 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:15:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] OBJECTION ACK on draft letter In-Reply-To: <525BA8F7.2090008@itforchange.net> References: <20131014084125.23140dd5@quill> <525BA8F7.2090008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Oct 15 04:58:38 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 04:58:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <141b53488c8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <-2748787435333880351@unknownmsgid> <141b53488c8.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <525D03BE.8000607@cis-india.org> I'd recommend Adium for those using Mac OSX. For Windows and Linux, Suresh's recommendation of Pidgin is the way to go. You can use both Adium and Pidgin to connect to the IRC channel: #igf (on the server "chat.freenode.net") On Android phones, Xabber and ChatSecure (both are available on the Google Play Store and on F-Droid) will allow you to connect to #igf at irc.igf-online.net If using a client is too much hassle, please use your browser: http://igf-online.net/chat.php All of the above are free/libre/open source software. The protocols (IRC and XMPP) are also open protocols, unlike Skype. Suresh Ramasubramanian [2013-10-14 00:23]: > Pidgin is an excellent cross platform client > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 14 October 2013 9:33:30 AM Robert Guerra wrote: >> Sala, >> >> Likely the visa on arrival fee varies depending on nationality :) >> >> Forgot to add that do ask others to share info when they arrive and any >> tips/recommendations people may have about Bali. >> >> Looks like there are two hashtags being used for the event - #igf2013 and >> #igf13 . Suggest #igf2013 be used, as it is the one members of the >> national >> organizing committee are using. >> >> In the past I have tried to setup a group skype channel. I won't do so >> this >> year as am decommissioning the use of Skype in favour of more open >> standards (such as XMPP) Suggest use of jabber compatible client >> (which is >> available for all platforms) >> >> Recommend Adium (Mac os), and chat secure (ios). Likely there are >> equivalents for other platforms >> >> Regards >> >> Robert >> >> Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On Oct 14, 2013, at 11:53 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi thanks for this heads up Robert. >> >> I thought the visa on arrival was 10USD so it's good to know. I would be >> curious as to how much the sim cards cost. I will be at the Kuta Beach >> Heritage Resort. Wondering where everyone is staying. I should be >> there on >> Saturday night. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Robert Guerra >> wrote: >> >> > Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next >> > few days for the IGF >> > >> > - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get >> the best >> > view >> > >> > - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but >> > construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller >> > - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me >> > - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass >> through >> > customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport >> > - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs >> ) and >> > 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't >> inquire as >> > to cost, through >> > - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up >> as is >> > the free APEC airport wifi :) >> > >> > Hope these tips are helpful >> > >> > Robert >> > >> > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. >> > >> > -- >> > R. Guerra >> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 <+1%20202-905-2081> >> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > > -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Postgraduate Associate & Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Tue Oct 15 09:10:09 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 08:10:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] APC's priorities for IGF 2013 Message-ID: Dear all, The document which highlights APC's priorities and main activities for the 2013 IGF is available at http://www.apc.org/en/node/18615/ Your comments are welcome. Best, Valeria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 15 09:16:22 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:16:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! Message-ID: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like to meet as many as possible of you in person. I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to the silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at all (regardless of what the reason for that may be). We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me get a better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil society structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not be able to promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but as long as I don't know about your needs, I don't even have a chance to try doing anything about them. Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 09:46:55 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:46:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Internet and OpenStand: The Internet Didn't Happen by Accident Message-ID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131014_internet_and_openstand_the_internet_didnt_happen_by_accident/ -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 10:04:37 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:04:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, I'd like to spend a few minutes with you. George On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like to > meet as many as possible of you in person. > > I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to the > silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at all > (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > > We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me get a > better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil society > structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not be able to > promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but as long as I > don't know about your needs, I don't even have a chance to try doing > anything about them. > > Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Oct 15 10:06:25 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:06:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] The Internet and OpenStand: The Internet Didn't Happen by Accident In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 09:46:55 on Tue, 15 Oct 2013, McTim writes >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131014_internet_and_openstand_the_intern >et_didnt_happen_by_accident/ I think it reached critical mass by accident (in around 1996) and since then a lot of effort has been put into trying to fossilise the classic Californian educated middle class liberal values which permeated it up until them. At some point since then, a whole load of people with much darker motives have infiltrated the Internet, and it's about time more attention was paid to how to keep the 'black hats' from unduly affecting the day to day usage of the Internet by the 'white hats'. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 10:15:13 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:15:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hello All, Am in Jakarta attending the Indonesia International Expo 2013. Will be in Bali on the 19 to attend Best Bits meeting b/4 IGF 2013. Warm regards. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Oct 15, 2013 8:17 PM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like to > meet as many as possible of you in person. > > I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to the > silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at all > (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > > We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me get a > better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil society > structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not be able to > promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but as long as I > don't know about your needs, I don't even have a chance to try doing > anything about them. > > Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 15 10:46:18 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:46:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Hi Robert, Two questions about Bali I hope you can help with. The power socket (plug) what type is it: US, UK, European, other? How strong is the air conditioning? Singapore you often need a jacket in building, while melting outside. Thanks, Adam On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next few days for the IGF > > - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best view > > - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller > - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me > - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport > - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as to cost, through > - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is the free APEC airport wifi :) > > Hope these tips are helpful > > Robert > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 11:01:38 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 17:01:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hello Norbert, I will be in Bali on 20 at 00.10 hope to meet you Baudouin 2013/10/15 Norbert Bollow > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like to > meet as many as possible of you in person. > > I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to the > silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at all > (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > > We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me get a > better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil society > structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not be able to > promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but as long as I > don't know about your needs, I don't even have a chance to try doing > anything about them. > > Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* * *Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Oct 15 11:02:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 20:32:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> Indonesia uses standard British power plugs. The three pin flat ones at 220 V 50 Hz (type G at www.electricaloutlet.org/type-g) You can expect to occasionally see older 2 pin round plugs (type C and type F using the above link instead of type G) .. but it is a safe bet that hotels / airports / conference centers are going to be type G british 3 pin. --srs (iPad) > On 15-Oct-2013, at 20:16, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > Two questions about Bali I hope you can help with. > > The power socket (plug) what type is it: US, UK, European, other? > > How strong is the air conditioning? Singapore you often need a jacket in building, while melting outside. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > >> On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> >> Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next few days for the IGF >> >> - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best view >> >> - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller >> - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me >> - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport >> - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as to cost, through >> - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is the free APEC airport wifi :) >> >> Hope these tips are helpful >> >> Robert >> >> Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 11:10:11 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:10:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> Message-ID: <8AEB61B9-B69F-4A95-B43D-90690FCA3030@gmail.com> I was in Bali early this year for a OCWC mtg. Terrible wireless connection in hotel rooms. But they do offer wire connection. Be sure to take your own cable and adaptors. Carol Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 15, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Indonesia uses standard British power plugs. The three pin flat ones at 220 V 50 Hz (type G at www.electricaloutlet.org/type-g) > > You can expect to occasionally see older 2 pin round plugs (type C and type F using the above link instead of type G) .. but it is a safe bet that hotels / airports / conference centers are going to be type G british 3 pin. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 15-Oct-2013, at 20:16, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Hi Robert, >> >> Two questions about Bali I hope you can help with. >> >> The power socket (plug) what type is it: US, UK, European, other? >> >> How strong is the air conditioning? Singapore you often need a jacket in building, while melting outside. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>> >>> Just arrived in Bali . A few quick notes for those arriving in the next few days for the IGF >>> >>> - view is quite scenic flying into Bali. Get a window seat to get the best view >>> >>> - Bali airport is undergoing renovations . All quite orderly, but construction makes the waiting areas a bit smaller >>> - visa on arrival fee was 25 $ usd for me >>> - after you collect your luggage, it gets xrayed and then you pass through customs, and exit to the arrivals section of the airport >>> - there are numerous ATM machines in the arrival area (past customs ) and 1 or 2 mobile company booths (where one can get sims ). I didn't inquire as to cost, through >>> - even though it's over, the APEC leaders summit signs are still up as is the free APEC airport wifi :) >>> >>> Hope these tips are helpful >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos and brevity. >>> >>> -- >>> R. Guerra >>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Oct 15 13:19:19 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:19:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> Message-ID: <889383DC-B4ED-49A2-AF4A-1305935241BF@uzh.ch> On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Indonesia uses standard British power plugs. The three pin flat ones at 220 V 50 Hz (type G atwww.electricaloutlet.org/type-g) For alternative views, see http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm and http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm which both have Indonesia using the standard European plugs used in Holland. So no standard answer across the websites on standards. Surely this is something that can be verified by someone? I'm packing to leave tomorrow and would be keen to know… Thanks Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Oct 15 13:23:03 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:23:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe there have always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Is that happening again, or is it proposed that this be replaced by bilateral encounters with one of the co-cos? Thanks, Bill On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like to > meet as many as possible of you in person. > > I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to the > silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at all > (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > > We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me get a > better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil society > structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not be able to > promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but as long as I > don't know about your needs, I don't even have a chance to try doing > anything about them. > > Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 15 15:58:23 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:58:23 +1100 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <889383DC-B4ED-49A2-AF4A-1305935241BF@uzh.ch> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> <889383DC-B4ED-49A2-AF4A-1305935241BF@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <5EAFB10B1F2C43648567999B00ED9AE6@Toshiba> I Think Suresh’s advice might be wrong for Bali – see http://indonesia.elga.net.id/indoway/electric.html. I would take the two round pin European adaptor. Other parts of Indonesia might be different. From: William Drake Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Adam Peake ; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Bali airport construction On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Indonesia uses standard British power plugs. The three pin flat ones at 220 V 50 Hz (type G atwww.electricaloutlet.org/type-g) For alternative views, see http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm and http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm which both have Indonesia using the standard European plugs used in Holland. So no standard answer across the websites on standards. Surely this is something that can be verified by someone? I'm packing to leave tomorrow and would be keen to know… Thanks Bill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 15 16:04:52 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 07:04:52 +1100 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <5EAFB10B1F2C43648567999B00ED9AE6@Toshiba> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> <889383DC-B4ED-49A2-AF4A-1305935241BF@uzh.ch> <5EAFB10B1F2C43648567999B00ED9AE6@Toshiba> Message-ID: <3AF3197CF8A84F239714B87087E19348@Toshiba> also confirmed by host country website FAQs Q: What type of electricity outlet is in use in Indonesia? A: Electricity is supplied at 220V 50Hz. Outlets are the European standard CEE-7/7 “Schukostecker” or “Schuko” or the compatible, but non-grounded, CEE-7/16 “Europlug” types. Generally speaking, US and Canadian travelers should pack an adapter for these outlets if they plan to use North American electrical equipment in Bali or elsewhere in Indonesia. From: Ian Peter Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:58 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] Bali airport construction I Think Suresh’s advice might be wrong for Bali – see http://indonesia.elga.net.id/indoway/electric.html. I would take the two round pin European adaptor. Other parts of Indonesia might be different. From: William Drake Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Adam Peake ; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Bali airport construction On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Indonesia uses standard British power plugs. The three pin flat ones at 220 V 50 Hz (type G atwww.electricaloutlet.org/type-g) For alternative views, see http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm and http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm which both have Indonesia using the standard European plugs used in Holland. So no standard answer across the websites on standards. Surely this is something that can be verified by someone? I'm packing to leave tomorrow and would be keen to know… Thanks Bill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 20:12:14 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:12:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Australian IGF Message-ID: Dear All, In case anyone is interested: A two day Australian Internet Governance Forum has started today. The Event schedule and link to live stream is available at http://www.igf.org.au/venue-schedule Keynote from ICANN Chair – Dr. Stephen Crocker coming up followed by many thought provoking panel discussions on Internet governance issues. You can follow the event on twitter: #auigf Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 20:57:20 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:57:20 +1100 Subject: [governance] Australian IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Sala, I'm here in person at the auIGF and there is plenty of activity in the Twitter feed as well! Angela On 16 October 2013 11:12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > In case anyone is interested: > > A two day Australian Internet Governance Forum has started today. The > Event schedule and link to live stream is available at > http://www.igf.org.au/venue-schedule > > Keynote from ICANN Chair – Dr. Stephen Crocker coming up followed by many > thought provoking panel discussions on Internet governance issues. > > You can follow the event on twitter: #auigf > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Oct 15 21:23:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:53:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <889383DC-B4ED-49A2-AF4A-1305935241BF@uzh.ch> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> <889383DC-B4ED-49A2-AF4A-1305935241BF@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <141bedc6d78.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I vaguely remember having used British flat three pin on a trip to Bali but that was about a decade back I would suggest getting one of those universal travel adaptors you can find for like twenty dollars at most airport electronics stores. You can flip or slide a switch to enable whichever pin you like, even the tilted two pin chinese plugs --srs (htc one x) On 15 October 2013 10:49:19 PM William Drake wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Indonesia uses standard British power plugs. The three pin flat ones at > 220 V 50 Hz (type G atwww.electricaloutlet.org/type-g) > > For alternative views, see > > http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm > > and > > http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm > > which both have Indonesia using the standard European plugs used in > Holland. So no standard answer across the websites on standards. > > Surely this is something that can be verified by someone? I'm packing to > leave tomorrow and would be keen to know… > > Thanks > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 21:30:37 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:30:37 +1200 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: <141bedc6d78.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> <889383DC-B4ED-49A2-AF4A-1305935241BF@uzh.ch> <141bedc6d78.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hope this link helps http://www.mybaliguide.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=74 On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I vaguely remember having used British flat three pin on a trip to Bali > but that was about a decade back > > I would suggest getting one of those universal travel adaptors you can > find for like twenty dollars at most airport electronics stores. You can > flip or slide a switch to enable whichever pin you like, even the tilted > two pin chinese plugs > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 15 October 2013 10:49:19 PM William Drake ** wrote: > > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > Indonesia uses standard British power plugs. The three pin flat ones at > 220 V 50 Hz (type G atwww.electricaloutlet.org/type-g) > > > For alternative views, see > > http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm > > and > > http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm > > which both have Indonesia using the standard European plugs used in > Holland. So no standard answer across the websites on standards. > > Surely this is something that can be verified by someone? I'm packing to > leave tomorrow and would be keen to know… > > Thanks > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 21:59:04 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:59:04 +1100 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: It would be great to meet everyone in Bali in person! Angela On 16 October 2013 04:23, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe there have > always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Is that happening again, or is it > proposed that this be replaced by bilateral encounters with one of the > co-cos? > > Thanks, > > Bill > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like to > meet as many as possible of you in person. > > I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to the > silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at all > (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > > We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me get a > better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil society > structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not be able to > promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but as long as I > don't know about your needs, I don't even have a chance to try doing > anything about them. > > Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Tue Oct 15 22:18:02 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:18:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: +1. At least to have face to face interaction. Best regards. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Oct 16, 2013 8:59 AM, "Angela Daly" wrote: > It would be great to meet everyone in Bali in person! > > Angela > > > On 16 October 2013 04:23, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe there have >> always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Is that happening again, or is it >> proposed that this be replaced by bilateral encounters with one of the >> co-cos? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill >> >> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Dear all >> >> Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like to >> meet as many as possible of you in person. >> >> I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to the >> silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at all >> (regardless of what the reason for that may be). >> >> We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me get a >> better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil society >> structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not be able to >> promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but as long as I >> don't know about your needs, I don't even have a chance to try doing >> anything about them. >> >> Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 15 22:59:14 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:59:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> Angela and Sonigitu You can of course organize something... I'm not organizing an IGC meeting in Bali. I wouldn't have minded doing so if it had been requested politely, but the tone of Bill's posting, together with the fact that he hardly ever deems me worthy of any interaction except in the context of attacking me, doesn't let it appear likely that such a meeting would turn out to be friendly or productive. Frankly, just doing what is required in regard to this list, which according to IGC Charter is the IGC's priority working space, is already exposing me to so much hostility that I am not willing to expose myself to additional hostility by organizing a meeting that would quite likely be full of it. Greetings, Norbert Am Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:18:02 +0100 schrieb Sonigitu Ekpe : > +1. At least to have face to face interaction. > > Best regards. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > On Oct 16, 2013 8:59 AM, "Angela Daly" wrote: > > > It would be great to meet everyone in Bali in person! > > > > Angela > > > > > > On 16 October 2013 04:23, William Drake > > wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe > >> there have always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Is that > >> happening again, or is it proposed that this be replaced by > >> bilateral encounters with one of the co-cos? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >> > >> Dear all > >> > >> Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like > >> to meet as many as possible of you in person. > >> > >> I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to > >> the silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at > >> all (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > >> > >> We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me > >> get a better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil > >> society structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not > >> be able to promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but > >> as long as I don't know about your needs, I don't even have a > >> chance to try doing anything about them. > >> > >> Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> ********************************************************** > >> William J. Drake > >> International Fellow & Lecturer > >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > >> University of Zurich, Switzerland > >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org > >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > >> www.williamdrake.org > >> *********************************************************** > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Oct 15 23:04:17 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:04:17 +0800 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> Message-ID: <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> On 16/10/13 10:59, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I'm not organizing an IGC meeting in Bali. I wouldn't have minded doing > so if it had been requested politely, but the tone of Bill's posting, > together with the fact that he hardly ever deems me worthy of any > interaction except in the context of attacking me, doesn't let it > appear likely that such a meeting would turn out to be friendly or > productive. Frankly, just doing what is required in regard to this list, > which according to IGC Charter is the IGC's priority working space, is > already exposing me to so much hostility that I am not willing to > expose myself to additional hostility by organizing a meeting that would > quite likely be full of it. Most people's bark (on this list) is far worse than their bite (in person). Something about the governance list just brings out the oaf in people.* * That's not a comment about Bill, whom I don't find oafish on-list. Nor on you, who have been extremely long-suffering and gone beyond the call of duty in many ways. In fact it's not even a comment on whoever is reading this, only about everyone else. ;-) -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Oct 15 23:38:05 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:38:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131016033805.GA4561@kusti.tarvainen.info> On Oct 16 11:04, Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) wrote: > On 16/10/13 10:59, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I'm not organizing an IGC meeting in Bali. I wouldn't have minded doing > > so if it had been requested politely, but the tone of Bill's posting, > > together with the fact that he hardly ever deems me worthy of any > > interaction except in the context of attacking me, doesn't let it > > appear likely that such a meeting would turn out to be friendly or > > productive. Frankly, just doing what is required in regard to this list, > > which according to IGC Charter is the IGC's priority working space, is > > already exposing me to so much hostility that I am not willing to > > expose myself to additional hostility by organizing a meeting that would > > quite likely be full of it. > > Most people's bark (on this list) is far worse than their bite (in > person). Something about the governance list just brings out the oaf in > people.* Yes. And not just the governance list but mailing lists in general - some people have real Jekyll-in-real-life-Hyde-in-the-Internet syndrome. I certainly have no memory of any kind of hostility in IGC meetings in any IGF. But, for what' it's worth, I didn't find Bill's message oafish or attacking in any way - I fear this is just another example of different cultural conventions and expectations colliding. Norbert, I for one would very much appreciate if you'd organize IGC meeting in Bali, even though I do understand why you're unwilling to do so - but I actually think you might find it a much nicer experience than managing the list - people are indeed much nice in real life. In any case thank you for your selfless work in managing the list. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 15 23:48:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:48:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20131016054825.705a646d@quill> William Drake wrote: > Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe there > have always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Maybe my memory is failing me, but I honestly don't remember any caucus meeting to have taken place at last year's IGF in Baku. > Is that happening > again, or is it proposed that this be replaced by bilateral > encounters with one of the co-cos? I'm not proposing that my desire to meet as many people as possible on a personal basis (with a particular focus on meeting people who don't normally communicate much on the IGC list) should be understood as a replacement for anything else. It is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. Greetings, Norbert > On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Dear all > > > > Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like to > > meet as many as possible of you in person. > > > > I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to > > the silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at > > all (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > > > > We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me > > get a better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil > > society structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not be > > able to promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but as > > long as I don't know about your needs, I don't even have a chance > > to try doing anything about them. > > > > Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Oct 16 00:07:33 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:07:33 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320DF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> To have no meeting is a missed opportunity ;-((( wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Mi 16.10.2013 05:04 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! On 16/10/13 10:59, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I'm not organizing an IGC meeting in Bali. I wouldn't have minded doing > so if it had been requested politely, but the tone of Bill's posting, > together with the fact that he hardly ever deems me worthy of any > interaction except in the context of attacking me, doesn't let it > appear likely that such a meeting would turn out to be friendly or > productive. Frankly, just doing what is required in regard to this list, > which according to IGC Charter is the IGC's priority working space, is > already exposing me to so much hostility that I am not willing to > expose myself to additional hostility by organizing a meeting that would > quite likely be full of it. Most people's bark (on this list) is far worse than their bite (in person). Something about the governance list just brings out the oaf in people.* * That's not a comment about Bill, whom I don't find oafish on-list. Nor on you, who have been extremely long-suffering and gone beyond the call of duty in many ways. In fact it's not even a comment on whoever is reading this, only about everyone else. ;-) -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 16 00:18:45 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:18:45 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320DF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320DF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <525E13A5.2000304@ciroap.org> On 16/10/13 12:07, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > To have no meeting is a missed opportunity ;-((( Maybe do it before the APC dinner? (Is there an APC dinner?) -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 00:29:15 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:29:15 +1200 Subject: AW: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <525E13A5.2000304@ciroap.org> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320DF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <525E13A5.2000304@ciroap.org> Message-ID: This is a quick note to say that we will have an IGC meeting as soon as we sort out a suitable time. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16/10/13 12:07, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > To have no meeting is a missed opportunity ;-((( > > > Maybe do it before the APC dinner? (Is there an APC dinner?) > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Oct 16 00:36:26 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:36:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <20131016033805.GA4561@kusti.tarvainen.info> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> <20131016033805.GA4561@kusti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20131016063626.4f81f127@quill> Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > I for one would very much appreciate if you'd organize > IGC meeting in Bali [with IGC coordinator hat on] Hi Tapani and all What kind of content / theme would you envision as desirable for such a meeting? Here are some initial ideas... I don't think that it would make a lot of sense to try to implement more than one or at most perhaps two of them: a) The Internet governance landscape and power distribution has recently shifted significantly. We could discuss this, exchanging insights, with the goal of collectively gaining a better understanding of what is going on. b) We could discuss whether it would be desirable to develop a clearer definition of what is “civil society”, and whether it would be appropriate to introduce “multi/other” as a new stakeholder category. c) We could discuss issues of transparency about funding and other dependencies incurred by civil society persons and organizations. d) We could discuss what kind of selection processes could be used in the future for selecting civil society representatives in bodies such as multistakeholder working groups organized by the UN. e) We could discuss the future of the IGC, such as how it could be improved, any ideas for charter changes that would be desirable (and that have a realistic chance of clearing the very high hurdle which the current charter imposes for charter amendments). f) Another idea would be to have one or more presentations on an interesting and important topic, such as e.g. how to empower grassroots groups to be able to effectively engage at the national level. g) Or we could focus the meeting on getting to know each other; this could be implemented for example by means of a series of lightning talks in which as many people as realistically possible would have only three minutes each to talk very briefly about themselves and about one aspect of Internet governance they care about. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 16 00:42:23 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:42:23 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <525E13A5.2000304@ciroap.org> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320DF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <525E13A5.2000304@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <525E192F.6090406@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all We are provisionally thinking of the APC dinner being on the last night. Just to avoid clashing with all the other activities. Are are all the IGC/CS people still around then? Evening of the 25th. Anriette On 16/10/2013 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16/10/13 12:07, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> To have no meeting is a missed opportunity ;-((( > > Maybe do it before the APC dinner? (Is there an APC dinner?) > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSXhkuAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewtF8IAMJHKzj/MvkZYivhgkIb5yrK NvJI6CvhmAnLeuewWGoRDei6S1GPWq/jPjsdSHHKko37NTMPdPGqYvZ6xH/PJM+w +OsGGdRvp0h6DTfJ+H1QpawbRWtUvX3qfb5z423OPmWbbENad4aStjLYnkg4rYeu oV9VOuMzOCIU3AmRKIjrD859li3CfzgukTn1044vCrGqkI+oFD9tFgQ/T0EnYSGj z8bc21Xm4PsgHffGM0xdOj+1WqIHKD0J6MuN/9EyR5xGr4UnubHbUqG4FyndG5EA BGWx6SDoOp1M2ikEffJezW//l4CFfw+8ocWzX5xrzHQJuSWZdheHLmOFqbNa+a8= =AGFd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 16 00:49:02 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:49:02 +0800 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <20131016063626.4f81f127@quill> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> <20131016033805.GA4561@kusti.tarvainen.info> <20131016063626.4f81f127@quill> Message-ID: <525E1ABE.8090900@ciroap.org> On 16/10/13 12:36, Norbert Bollow wrote: > What kind of content / theme would you envision as desirable for such a > meeting? > > d) We could discuss what kind of selection processes could be used in > the future for selecting civil society representatives in bodies such > as multistakeholder working groups organized by the UN. > > e) We could discuss the future of the IGC, such as how it could be > improved, any ideas for charter changes that would be desirable (and > that have a realistic chance of clearing the very high hurdle which > the current charter imposes for charter amendments). These two (or just (e)). -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Oct 16 01:34:24 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:34:24 +1100 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <525E192F.6090406@apc.org> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320DF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <525E13A5.2000304@ciroap.org> <525E192F.6090406@apc.org> Message-ID: <4D9237F82E12492D8B7D6CC37358F39F@Toshiba> I’m gone by then – leaving afternoon of 25th. Wonder how many others might also be leaving then. Sad if I miss the APC dinner, hope I dont miss IGC meeting as well. Ian Peter From: Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:42 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all We are provisionally thinking of the APC dinner being on the last night. Just to avoid clashing with all the other activities. Are are all the IGC/CS people still around then? Evening of the 25th. Anriette On 16/10/2013 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16/10/13 12:07, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> To have no meeting is a missed opportunity ;-((( > > Maybe do it before the APC dinner? (Is there an APC dinner?) > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSXhkuAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewtF8IAMJHKzj/MvkZYivhgkIb5yrK NvJI6CvhmAnLeuewWGoRDei6S1GPWq/jPjsdSHHKko37NTMPdPGqYvZ6xH/PJM+w +OsGGdRvp0h6DTfJ+H1QpawbRWtUvX3qfb5z423OPmWbbENad4aStjLYnkg4rYeu oV9VOuMzOCIU3AmRKIjrD859li3CfzgukTn1044vCrGqkI+oFD9tFgQ/T0EnYSGj z8bc21Xm4PsgHffGM0xdOj+1WqIHKD0J6MuN/9EyR5xGr4UnubHbUqG4FyndG5EA BGWx6SDoOp1M2ikEffJezW//l4CFfw+8ocWzX5xrzHQJuSWZdheHLmOFqbNa+a8= =AGFd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 01:44:54 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:44:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <4D9237F82E12492D8B7D6CC37358F39F@Toshiba> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <525E0231.7040403@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320DF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <525E13A5.2000304@ciroap.org> <525E192F.6090406@apc.org> <4D9237F82E12492D8B7D6CC37358F39F@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi , same case for me, I think that many will leave by friday afternoon(skipping the closing session :)?) Rafik 2013/10/16 Ian Peter > I’m gone by then – leaving afternoon of 25th. Wonder how many others > might also be leaving then. Sad if I miss the APC dinner, hope I dont miss > IGC meeting as well. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Anriette Esterhuysen > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:42 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Jeremy Malcolm > *Subject:* Re: AW: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all > > We are provisionally thinking of the APC dinner being on the last night. > Just to avoid clashing with all the other activities. > > Are are all the IGC/CS people still around then? > > Evening of the 25th. > > Anriette > > > On 16/10/2013 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 16/10/13 12:07, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > >> To have no meeting is a missed opportunity ;-((( > > > > Maybe do it before the APC dinner? (Is there an APC dinner?) > > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSXhkuAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewtF8IAMJHKzj/MvkZYivhgkIb5yrK > NvJI6CvhmAnLeuewWGoRDei6S1GPWq/jPjsdSHHKko37NTMPdPGqYvZ6xH/PJM+w > +OsGGdRvp0h6DTfJ+H1QpawbRWtUvX3qfb5z423OPmWbbENad4aStjLYnkg4rYeu > oV9VOuMzOCIU3AmRKIjrD859li3CfzgukTn1044vCrGqkI+oFD9tFgQ/T0EnYSGj > z8bc21Xm4PsgHffGM0xdOj+1WqIHKD0J6MuN/9EyR5xGr4UnubHbUqG4FyndG5EA > BGWx6SDoOp1M2ikEffJezW//l4CFfw+8ocWzX5xrzHQJuSWZdheHLmOFqbNa+a8= > =AGFd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Oct 16 02:16:11 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:16:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> Message-ID: <38FB5028-B4F6-47F5-BDCC-0EB7B711A03F@uzh.ch> Norbert There was nothing hostile (or oafish) about my question. Every year coordinators used to organize meetings at IGFs (although right, not at Baku...). You didn't propose to do so but suggested private meetings with you about which people should email you off list. I asked if the one is a replacement for the other. That's it. Effects don't precede causes, so please don't blame me for you'd not intended to do before I asked. More generally, caucus members have always had varying views, but the meetings have worked fine and I don't recall any heated interpersonal arguments. There is no reason to believe a meeting now would be any different. Thanks, Bill On Oct 16, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Angela and Sonigitu > > You can of course organize something... > > I'm not organizing an IGC meeting in Bali. I wouldn't have minded doing > so if it had been requested politely, but the tone of Bill's posting, > together with the fact that he hardly ever deems me worthy of any > interaction except in the context of attacking me, doesn't let it > appear likely that such a meeting would turn out to be friendly or > productive. Frankly, just doing what is required in regard to this list, > which according to IGC Charter is the IGC's priority working space, is > already exposing me to so much hostility that I am not willing to > expose myself to additional hostility by organizing a meeting that would > quite likely be full of it. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:18:02 +0100 > schrieb Sonigitu Ekpe : > >> +1. At least to have face to face interaction. >> >> Best regards. >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> >> +234 8027510179 >> On Oct 16, 2013 8:59 AM, "Angela Daly" wrote: >> >>> It would be great to meet everyone in Bali in person! >>> >>> Angela >>> >>> >>> On 16 October 2013 04:23, William Drake >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe >>>> there have always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Is that >>>> happening again, or is it proposed that this be replaced by >>>> bilateral encounters with one of the co-cos? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like >>>> to meet as many as possible of you in person. >>>> >>>> I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to >>>> the silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at >>>> all (regardless of what the reason for that may be). >>>> >>>> We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me >>>> get a better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil >>>> society structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not >>>> be able to promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but >>>> as long as I don't know about your needs, I don't even have a >>>> chance to try doing anything about them. >>>> >>>> Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Oct 16 02:26:34 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:26:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bali airport construction In-Reply-To: References: <885884348704765741@unknownmsgid> <30D51516-638C-47EC-A362-959AC026F8B1@hserus.net> <889383DC-B4ED-49A2-AF4A-1305935241BF@uzh.ch> <141bedc6d78.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Yes, thanks BD On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Hope this link helps > > http://www.mybaliguide.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=74 > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I vaguely remember having used British flat three pin on a trip to Bali but that was about a decade back > > I would suggest getting one of those universal travel adaptors you can find for like twenty dollars at most airport electronics stores. You can flip or slide a switch to enable whichever pin you like, even the tilted two pin chinese plugs > > --srs (htc one x) > On 15 October 2013 10:49:19 PM William Drake wrote: > >> >> On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> Indonesia uses standard British power plugs. The three pin flat ones at 220 V 50 Hz (type G atwww.electricaloutlet.org/type-g) >> >> For alternative views, see >> >> http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm >> >> and >> >> http://www.walkabouttravelgear.com/ground.htm >> >> which both have Indonesia using the standard European plugs used in Holland. So no standard answer across the websites on standards. >> >> Surely this is something that can be verified by someone? I'm packing to leave tomorrow and would be keen to know… >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lucabelli at hotmail.it Wed Oct 16 05:01:09 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:01:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <38FB5028-B4F6-47F5-BDCC-0EB7B711A03F@uzh.ch> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill>,<38FB5028-B4F6-47F5-BDCC-0EB7B711A03F@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert and all, I will be very happy to meet you in Bali. If it is not possible to have an official IGC meeting (for whatever reason), perhaps it is still possible to organise some kind of informal and hopefully “convivial” meeting (for instance meeting up for lunch/dinner or after dinner)? I will arrive in Bali on Monday morning and I look forward to meeting you.All the best, Luca Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University > From: william.drake at uzh.ch > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:16:11 +0200 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch > Subject: Re: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! > > Norbert > > There was nothing hostile (or oafish) about my question. Every year coordinators used to organize meetings at IGFs (although right, not at Baku...). You didn't propose to do so but suggested private meetings with you about which people should email you off list. I asked if the one is a replacement for the other. That's it. Effects don't precede causes, so please don't blame me for you'd not intended to do before I asked. > > More generally, caucus members have always had varying views, but the meetings have worked fine and I don't recall any heated interpersonal arguments. There is no reason to believe a meeting now would be any different. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Angela and Sonigitu > > > > You can of course organize something... > > > > I'm not organizing an IGC meeting in Bali. I wouldn't have minded doing > > so if it had been requested politely, but the tone of Bill's posting, > > together with the fact that he hardly ever deems me worthy of any > > interaction except in the context of attacking me, doesn't let it > > appear likely that such a meeting would turn out to be friendly or > > productive. Frankly, just doing what is required in regard to this list, > > which according to IGC Charter is the IGC's priority working space, is > > already exposing me to so much hostility that I am not willing to > > expose myself to additional hostility by organizing a meeting that would > > quite likely be full of it. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:18:02 +0100 > > schrieb Sonigitu Ekpe : > > > >> +1. At least to have face to face interaction. > >> > >> Best regards. > >> > >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > >> > >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > >> > >> +234 8027510179 > >> On Oct 16, 2013 8:59 AM, "Angela Daly" wrote: > >> > >>> It would be great to meet everyone in Bali in person! > >>> > >>> Angela > >>> > >>> > >>> On 16 October 2013 04:23, William Drake > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe > >>>> there have always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Is that > >>>> happening again, or is it proposed that this be replaced by > >>>> bilateral encounters with one of the co-cos? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>> > >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>>> > >>>> Dear all > >>>> > >>>> Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like > >>>> to meet as many as possible of you in person. > >>>> > >>>> I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to > >>>> the silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at > >>>> all (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > >>>> > >>>> We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me > >>>> get a better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil > >>>> society structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not > >>>> be able to promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but > >>>> as long as I don't know about your needs, I don't even have a > >>>> chance to try doing anything about them. > >>>> > >>>> Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > >>>> > >>>> Greetings, > >>>> Norbert > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 05:15:22 2013 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:15:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: <38FB5028-B4F6-47F5-BDCC-0EB7B711A03F@uzh.ch> References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <38FB5028-B4F6-47F5-BDCC-0EB7B711A03F@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Dear All: We look forward to have an IGC caucus meeting in Bali. This is the only opportunity for us to see each other in person. I hope it will not take place at end of the last day since I (like many of my colleagues ) will be leaving the same day. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, William Drake wrote: > Norbert > > There was nothing hostile (or oafish) about my question. Every year > coordinators used to organize meetings at IGFs (although right, not at > Baku...). You didn't propose to do so but suggested private meetings with > you about which people should email you off list. I asked if the one is a > replacement for the other. That's it. Effects don't precede causes, so > please don't blame me for you'd not intended to do before I asked. > > More generally, caucus members have always had varying views, but the > meetings have worked fine and I don't recall any heated interpersonal > arguments. There is no reason to believe a meeting now would be any > different. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: > > > Angela and Sonigitu > > > > You can of course organize something... > > > > I'm not organizing an IGC meeting in Bali. I wouldn't have minded doing > > so if it had been requested politely, but the tone of Bill's posting, > > together with the fact that he hardly ever deems me worthy of any > > interaction except in the context of attacking me, doesn't let it > > appear likely that such a meeting would turn out to be friendly or > > productive. Frankly, just doing what is required in regard to this list, > > which according to IGC Charter is the IGC's priority working space, is > > already exposing me to so much hostility that I am not willing to > > expose myself to additional hostility by organizing a meeting that would > > quite likely be full of it. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:18:02 +0100 > > schrieb Sonigitu Ekpe >: > > > >> +1. At least to have face to face interaction. > >> > >> Best regards. > >> > >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > >> > >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > >> > >> +234 8027510179 > >> On Oct 16, 2013 8:59 AM, "Angela Daly" > > wrote: > >> > >>> It would be great to meet everyone in Bali in person! > >>> > >>> Angela > >>> > >>> > >>> On 16 October 2013 04:23, William Drake > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi > >>>> > >>>> Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe > >>>> there have always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Is that > >>>> happening again, or is it proposed that this be replaced by > >>>> bilateral encounters with one of the co-cos? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >>>> > >>>> Dear all > >>>> > >>>> Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like > >>>> to meet as many as possible of you in person. > >>>> > >>>> I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to > >>>> the silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at > >>>> all (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > >>>> > >>>> We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me > >>>> get a better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil > >>>> society structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not > >>>> be able to promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but > >>>> as long as I don't know about your needs, I don't even have a > >>>> chance to try doing anything about them. > >>>> > >>>> Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > >>>> > >>>> Greetings, > >>>> Norbert > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Oct 16 05:22:02 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:22:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN Message-ID: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> Hi As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. Best, Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 16 05:25:13 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:25:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] IETF Chair speaking on surveillance - RIPE mtg this week Message-ID: IETF chair Jari Arkko's presentation at the RIPE conference this week in Athens "Pervasive Monitoring and the Internet". Slides and video at: Among other things, discusses what the IETF's doing in response, vulnerability (or not, he thinks) of IETF standards, etc. from a slide titled "reactions" * Increased the need for more diverse Internet (more IXPs, cables, services), good! * Increased the calls for more nationally controlled Internets, bad! Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 16 05:42:26 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:42:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] timely: Indonesia Passes China to Become Top Source of Cyber-Attack Traffic Message-ID: The article mentions a report by Akamai, I'd have thought that would be their State of the Internet report, but not sure the stats from that match those quoted in the article. Anyway. An issue. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Oct 16 05:44:10 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:14:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN In-Reply-To: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> References: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Good people all. My congratulations. --srs (iPad) > On 16-Oct-2013, at 14:52, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 06:03:13 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 22:03:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN In-Reply-To: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> References: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Congratulations to all! > On Oct 16, 2013, at 9:22 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Oct 16 07:07:25 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 04:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN Message-ID: <1381921645.90267.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Congratulation to Rafik and Council Members. Thanks to update. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ------------------------------ On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 2:22 PM PKT William Drake wrote: >Hi > >As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. > >Best, > >Bill > > > > > > >********************************************************** >William J. Drake >International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland >Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org >william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org >*********************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 07:34:59 2013 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:04:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Core Internet Values DC meeting Message-ID: Hello The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values wishes to invite you to attend its fourth Annual meeting at the Bali IGF, chaired by George Sadowsky. The meeting will take place on Day 3 of the IGF, i.e. on Thursday, 24 October, from 11:00am to 12:30pm, in the Kintamani 1 Room (Room #7 on the IGF program schedule) The panel, in alphabetical order: Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Policy Officer, Consumers International Alice Munyua, Chair, Kenya Internet Governance Steering Committee Alejandro Pisanty, Professor, National Autonomous University of Mexico by remote participation. Carolina Rossini, Project Director, New American Foundation George Sadowsky, Director, ICANN (Moderator) Hong Xue, Director, Institute for Internet Policy and Law, Beijing Normal University Please join us at this meeting to discuss Core Internet Values. About the Dynamic Coalition: The Coalition has been in existence since 2008, and has adopted the following aims (taken from early Coalition documents): "The objective of the dynamic coalition on 'Core Internet Values’ is to debate and find answers to fundamental questions such as “What is the Internet? What makes it what it is? What are its architectural principles? What are the core principles and values? And what is happening to the core values in the process of its evolution? What is it that needs to be preserved and what changes are inevitable? The coalition would seek answers and define the Core Internet Principles and Values. " "The Internet model is open, transparent, and collaborative and relies on processes and products that are local, bottom-up, and accessible to users around the world. These principles and values are threatened when policy makers propose to regulate and control the Internet, with inadequate understanding of the core values. What is it that must be preserved in the process of policy making by legislators who seek to regulate the Internet and in the process of design changes by the Business sector in pursuit of business friendly models? What does the Internet Community say as what can't be changed? How could changes and improvements be brought about without compromising on the core values? How would the different positions between stakeholders be reconciled to commit to the core Internet values?" On the theme of Core Internet Values, the first was a workshop with the title "Workshop on Fundamentals: Core Internet Values" chaired by the Internet Society President Lynn St.Amour at IGF Egypt followed by three Annual meetings during the IGFs with the fourth IGF meeting to be held during IGF Bali. http://coreinternetvalues.org Please join us for this session as also share this information in your circles. Thank you. Sivasubramanian M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Wed Oct 16 08:40:16 2013 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:40:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries meeting at the 2013 IGF, Wednesday 23rd October, 16.30-18.00, Room 10 Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EA51D8E@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Dear colleagues Apologies for cross-posting. This email is going out to those who have interacted with the Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries (DC-PAL) and library sessions at the IGF, WSIS and ECOSOC in recent years. DC-PAL will meet for the second time at the IGF in Bali on Wednesday 23rd October, 16.30 - 18.00 in Room 10. At a time when issues such as good governance, transparency and public access to information are increasingly being explored in context of a new Post-2015 Development Framework, and core library issues such as user privacy and freedom of expression are receiving more attention across the world's media as a result of the Snowden revelations, I hope you will be able to come along to find out how libraries are continuing to provide access to the information sources people need to understand the world around them. This year's meeting will tackle the following agenda: 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Review of DC-PAL activity since last meeting 3. Public Libraries and development: An update on the Beyond Access Campaign 4. Access to information and the Post-2015 Development Framework - Panel and Discussion a. Stuart Hamilton, IFLA (Chair) b. Duncan Edwards, ICT Innovations Manager, Knowledge Services Team, Institute of Development Studies (IDS) c. Diah S. Saminarsih, Assistant President's Special Envoy on MDGs, Office of President's Special Envoy on MDGs, Republic of Indonesia d. Janis Karklins, Assistant Director General for Communication and Information, UNESCO 5. The DC-PAL Work Programme for 2013-2014 The main part of the meeting will be devoted to a discussion on item 4, Access to information and the Post-2015 Development Framework. As you will be aware, the United Nations is presently reviewing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) so that it can prepare a new development framework for the post-2015 period. The framework will guide developed and developing countries in improving living conditions for citizens. Concurrently, UNESCO and ITU are reviewing the World Summit on the Information Society Process (WSIS) to reflect upon its impact and to produce recommendations on WSIS beyond 2015 to the UN Secretary General in September 2014. It is currently thought that the WSIS recommendations will contribute to the Secretary General's thinking regarding any new development framework - but as far as we are aware there is as yet no formally agreed process to make this happen. The library community believes that the post-2015 development framework should recognise access to information as a fundamental element supporting development, and we believe that public access to ICTs and information must be recognised as a key focus in the context of the WSIS review. If you are interested in the relationship between information, ICTs and development then please come along to the DC-PAL meeting to hear more on what libraries and other partners are doing to make access to information a key part of a post-2015 development framework - and to get involved in what happens next. For your information, remote participation is available: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation Kind regards, Stuart Stuart Hamilton Director of Policy and Advocacy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @ifladpa Stuart Hamilton Director of Policy and Advocacy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @ifladpa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From r.deibert at utoronto.ca Wed Oct 16 12:38:55 2013 From: r.deibert at utoronto.ca (Ronald Deibert) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:38:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Bounding Cyber Power Message-ID: Hi IG List I am circulating a link to an article I just published entitled, "Bounding Cyber Power: Escalation and Restraint in Global Cyberspace," that I thought might be of interest to some on this list. I would welcome feedback. It is meant to be timed to inform discussions at the Bali IGF meeting, which I will attend and participate in next week. The article lays out some principles for a liberal democratic cyber security strategy. As I outline in the first half of the article, I believe we are heading down a path that is ruinous for an open and secure Internet, potentially quite dangerous for international relations, and ultimately self-defeating for liberal democratic countries' interests. In the second half of the article, I provide an overview of an alternative model of cyber security drawn from principles of mixture, division, and restraint that are associated with classic liberal theorizing and have informed the tradition of arms control. Here is an excerpt from the conclusion, in case you would like to cut to the chase: Looking toward the near term in cyberspace governance, there are many possible scenarios, with unforeseen contingencies taking us down any number of paths. At the same time, politics and society are not entirely chaotic: social order is shaped by underlying forces that set the tempo and framework within which life unfolds. Today, these forces appear to be driving securitization processes in cyberspace, processes that may end up subverting the domain entirely, possibly leading to system wide instability and perhaps even international violence.It is imperative that we use our agency to check and constrain the least desirable elements of these trends and shape those structures that provide the framework for what is seen as legitimate or not. Doing so will require a clear vision and a strategy to implement it, which in turn will require coordinated work at multiple levels and involve a wide variety of stakeholders. The obstacles standing in the way of realizing this vision are certainly formidable, but the alternatives to doing nothing are dire. The securitization of cyberspace may be inevitable, but what form that security takes is not. As the securing of cyberspace unfolds, ensuring basic principles of transparency, accountability and mutual restraint will be critical. To secure cyberspace in a way that does not sacrifice openness, liberal democracies do not need a new “cyber” theory, nor a reversion to old-school paradigms that reinforce international division; rather, we need to reinvest in and apply to the domain of cyberspace some timeless principles and practices. Link to PDF: http://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no6_2.pdf Ronald Deibert Director, the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto (416) 946-8916 PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab r.deibert at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Wed Oct 16 12:48:01 2013 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:48:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to 1 IGF pre-event and 1 IGF Open Forum Message-ID: <88D131C7-FA32-449D-9267-0A08B00BE414@marzouki.info> Dear all, As the IGF 2013 is approaching, I'm looking forward to seeing most of you again there, and I would like to invite you to the following two workshops. The first one is a pre-vent that I'm co-organizing and co-moderating with other academic colleagues, where we will discuss with different stakeholders "Technical standards, law-making, and other governance instruments and metrics for a measurable impact of multistakeholderism". This event takes place on Monday 21 October, 2013, 16.00-18.00, in Room #6 Uluwatu 7. Please find attached the invitation, with more details, including the workshop agenda, available at: http://www.internet-science.eu/igf-workshop-2013. The second one is the Council of Europe Open Forum, that will serve as an open consultation on the "Guide on human rights for Internet users", prepared by a CoE committee of experts which includes many members of the IRP (Internet Rights and Principles) coalition. In many ways, this Guide can be considered as an institutionalized follow-up to the IRP work on the Charter. This Open Forum will take place on Friday 25 October, 11.00-12.30, in Room 1 Nusa Dua Hall 2. Please find attached the workshop flyer. For those who are not able to be present in person, live streaming and remote participation will be arranged for both event. See you in Bali! 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EINS IGF Workshop Invitation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 84927 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CoEGuide.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 210571 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 13:10:58 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:10:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <38FB5028-B4F6-47F5-BDCC-0EB7B711A03F@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Dear All +1 to Qusai. I will arrive for the best bit meeting on the 19 and stay up to the 26/10/13 before departing to Bandung, Will be glad to attend the APC dinner. Best regards. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear All: > We look forward to have an IGC caucus meeting in Bali. This is the only > opportunity for us to see each other in person. I hope it will not take > place at end of the last day since I (like many of my colleagues ) will be > leaving the same day. > > Best Regards, > Qusai AlShatti > > > On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, William Drake wrote: > >> Norbert >> >> There was nothing hostile (or oafish) about my question. Every year >> coordinators used to organize meetings at IGFs (although right, not at >> Baku...). You didn't propose to do so but suggested private meetings with >> you about which people should email you off list. I asked if the one is a >> replacement for the other. That's it. Effects don't precede causes, so >> please don't blame me for you'd not intended to do before I asked. >> >> More generally, caucus members have always had varying views, but the >> meetings have worked fine and I don't recall any heated interpersonal >> arguments. There is no reason to believe a meeting now would be any >> different. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 16, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> > Angela and Sonigitu >> > >> > You can of course organize something... >> > >> > I'm not organizing an IGC meeting in Bali. I wouldn't have minded doing >> > so if it had been requested politely, but the tone of Bill's posting, >> > together with the fact that he hardly ever deems me worthy of any >> > interaction except in the context of attacking me, doesn't let it >> > appear likely that such a meeting would turn out to be friendly or >> > productive. Frankly, just doing what is required in regard to this list, >> > which according to IGC Charter is the IGC's priority working space, is >> > already exposing me to so much hostility that I am not willing to >> > expose myself to additional hostility by organizing a meeting that would >> > quite likely be full of it. >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > >> > Am Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:18:02 +0100 >> > schrieb Sonigitu Ekpe : >> > >> >> +1. At least to have face to face interaction. >> >> >> >> Best regards. >> >> >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> >> >> >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> >> >> >> +234 8027510179 >> >> On Oct 16, 2013 8:59 AM, "Angela Daly" wrote: >> >> >> >>> It would be great to meet everyone in Bali in person! >> >>> >> >>> Angela >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 16 October 2013 04:23, William Drake >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi >> >>>> >> >>>> Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe >> >>>> there have always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Is that >> >>>> happening again, or is it proposed that this be replaced by >> >>>> bilateral encounters with one of the co-cos? >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> >> >>>> Bill >> >>>> >> >>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear all >> >>>> >> >>>> Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like >> >>>> to meet as many as possible of you in person. >> >>>> >> >>>> I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to >> >>>> the silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at >> >>>> all (regardless of what the reason for that may be). >> >>>> >> >>>> We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me >> >>>> get a better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil >> >>>> society structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not >> >>>> be able to promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but >> >>>> as long as I don't know about your needs, I don't even have a >> >>>> chance to try doing anything about them. >> >>>> >> >>>> Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. >> >>>> >> >>>> Greetings, >> >>>> Norbert >> > >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Oct 16 13:35:40 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:05:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! In-Reply-To: References: <20131015151622.30fb4689@swan.bollow.ch> <20131016045914.7591d0a0@quill> <38FB5028-B4F6-47F5-BDCC-0EB7B711A03F@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, >From among your list of topics to discuss at a possible IGC meeting (which I agree would be good to have), I think it could be very helpful if we would emphasise on a (the Internet governance landscape and power distribution), d (selection processes) and e (the IGC itself) *in their interlinkages*: how are we going to effectively participate over the next few months in this changing landscape and how can we strengthen the IGC to support those efforts? I also gladly will share some thoughts with you in a person-to-person conversation - much appreciate the offer. . Many thanks, Anja On 16 October 2013 14:31, Luca Belli wrote: > Dear Norbert and all, > > > I will be very happy to meet you in Bali. If it is not possible to have an > official IGC meeting (for whatever reason), perhaps it is still possible > to organise some kind of informal and hopefully “convivial” meeting (for > instance meeting up for lunch/dinner or after dinner)? > > I will arrive in Bali on Monday morning and I look forward to meeting you. > > All the best, > > > Luca > > *Luca Belli * > ***Doctorant en Droit Public* > *CERSA,**Université **Panthéon-Assas* > *Sorbonne University * > * > * > > > > From: william.drake at uzh.ch > > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:16:11 +0200 > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch > > Subject: Re: [governance] Let's meet in Bali! > > > > > Norbert > > > > There was nothing hostile (or oafish) about my question. Every year > coordinators used to organize meetings at IGFs (although right, not at > Baku...). You didn't propose to do so but suggested private meetings with > you about which people should email you off list. I asked if the one is a > replacement for the other. That's it. Effects don't precede causes, so > please don't blame me for you'd not intended to do before I asked. > > > > More generally, caucus members have always had varying views, but the > meetings have worked fine and I don't recall any heated interpersonal > arguments. There is no reason to believe a meeting now would be any > different. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > Angela and Sonigitu > > > > > > You can of course organize something... > > > > > > I'm not organizing an IGC meeting in Bali. I wouldn't have minded doing > > > so if it had been requested politely, but the tone of Bill's posting, > > > together with the fact that he hardly ever deems me worthy of any > > > interaction except in the context of attacking me, doesn't let it > > > appear likely that such a meeting would turn out to be friendly or > > > productive. Frankly, just doing what is required in regard to this > list, > > > which according to IGC Charter is the IGC's priority working space, is > > > already exposing me to so much hostility that I am not willing to > > > expose myself to additional hostility by organizing a meeting that > would > > > quite likely be full of it. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > Am Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:18:02 +0100 > > > schrieb Sonigitu Ekpe : > > > > > >> +1. At least to have face to face interaction. > > >> > > >> Best regards. > > >> > > >> Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > >> > > >> "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > >> > > >> +234 8027510179 > > >> On Oct 16, 2013 8:59 AM, "Angela Daly" wrote: > > >> > > >>> It would be great to meet everyone in Bali in person! > > >>> > > >>> Angela > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 16 October 2013 04:23, William Drake > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi > > >>>> > > >>>> Unless my memory is failing me, from Athens forward I believe > > >>>> there have always been caucus meetings at the IGF. Is that > > >>>> happening again, or is it proposed that this be replaced by > > >>>> bilateral encounters with one of the co-cos? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> > > >>>> Bill > > >>>> > > >>>> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > >>>> > > >>>> Dear all > > >>>> > > >>>> Any many of us will be in Bali during the next week, I would like > > >>>> to meet as many as possible of you in person. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm particularly interested in meeting some of those who belong to > > >>>> the silent majority in the IGC, i.e. people who post rarely if at > > >>>> all (regardless of what the reason for that may be). > > >>>> > > >>>> We can discuss any topic you like. For example you could help me > > >>>> get a better understanding of your needs in regard to global civil > > >>>> society structures in the area of Internet governance. I may not > > >>>> be able to promise that the IGC can meet all of those needs, but > > >>>> as long as I don't know about your needs, I don't even have a > > >>>> chance to try doing anything about them. > > >>>> > > >>>> Please email me off-list if you think that you can find some time. > > >>>> > > >>>> Greetings, > > >>>> Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 14:45:09 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:45:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN In-Reply-To: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> References: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Congratulations to our great friends and fellows. Sonigitu Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society > in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group > in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was > elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were > elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bavouc at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 18:23:29 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:23:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN In-Reply-To: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> References: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <00a401cecabe$59186110$0b492330$@gmail.coom> Good news, Congratulation to all of you ! From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: mercredi 16 octobre 2013 10:22 To: Governance Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN Hi As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. Best, Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracey at traceynaughton.com Wed Oct 16 19:43:29 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:43:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN In-Reply-To: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> References: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> Message-ID: This is great news. Such good people. Congratulations and thanks for your work all. Tracey On 16/10/2013, at 8:22 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Wed Oct 16 21:09:05 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:09:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <817A53CC-EE63-4741-80BE-3AEF4798278B@gmail.com> Congratulations! Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 16/10/2013, a las 18:43, Tracey Naughton escribió: > > This is great news. Such good people. Congratulations and thanks for your work all. Tracey > >> On 16/10/2013, at 8:22 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 16 22:13:54 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 04:13:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <525F47E2.8080008@apc.org> +1 Tracey Anriette On 17/10/2013 01:43, Tracey Naughton wrote: > This is great news. Such good people. Congratulations and thanks for > your work all. Tracey > > On 16/10/2013, at 8:22 PM, William Drake > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil >> society in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial >> Stakeholders Group in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes >> cast, Rafik Dammak was elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri >> Doria, and Amr Elsadr were elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Oct 17 00:44:19 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:44:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] INVITATION! Disco-tech at the Bali IGF In-Reply-To: <20131016131651.1E3121093E445@lists.apcwomen.org> References: <20131016131651.1E3121093E445@lists.apcwomen.org> Message-ID: <525F6B23.9090708@apc.org> Dear all Apologies for cross posts. Please all of you who are in Bali, come to this! Anriette ---------------------- Dear friends! DO YOU WANT TO FEEL MORE IN CONTROL OF YOUR ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS? COME TO THE APC TACTICAL TECH DISCO-TECH! The security of digital networks and information is becoming increasingly important to all internet users due to the increase in incidences of governments and corporations spying on netizens and human rights defenders. Journalists, democracy activists, women human rights defenders and sexual rights activists, who use ICTs to report on, and campaign against, human rights abuses face surveillance, censorship, information security vulnerabilities, and information security compromises that can be life threatening.^1 <#sdfootnote1sym> To shed light on the practical steps that members of civil society can take to protect themselves and their activism, APC and Tactical Tech are hosting a peer-learning session on the night before the global IGF in Bali, 21 October 2013. We're calling it “the Disco-tech” because the format of the event will be very unique. Participants can learn about technological solutions in an inspiring and relaxed yet high-energy atmosphere. Experts and activists will be talking about tools and experiences with online surveillance, safety, the right to privacy and anonymity. Participants will have the opportunity to set up stations to share technological tools, information or discuss specific issues. A “key signing party” and an introduction to encryption will be held in parallel. Event details * Date/time: 21 October 19:00 – 22:00 * Venue: Mantra Nusa Dua^2 <#sdfootnote2sym> ballroom * Transport: IGF shuttle bus * Attendance: Approx. 100 people * Food: Light snacks and drinks We really hope that you can join us. Please bring your colleagues and partners as well. Speakers from all over the world include: Shahzad Ahmad, Bytes for All Pakistan; Ellery Biddle, Global Voices; Sarah Clarke, Pen International; Mahmood Enayat, Small Media Foundation; Robert Guerra, Citizen Lab; Gerard Harris, Deflect.ca; Octavia Jonsdottir, IREX; Nadine Moawad, APC; M. Chris Riley, Mozilla; and Bobby Soriano, Tactical Tech. See you in Bali! Please RSVP to: Mallory Knodel, APC - mallory at apc.org Gillo Cutrupi, TTC - gillo at tacticaltech.org 1 <#sdfootnote1anc>Alex Comninos, http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/PRINT_ISSUE_Cyberseguridad_EN.pdf 2 <#sdfootnote2anc> http://www.mantranusadua.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkeshav42 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 17 00:59:48 2013 From: nkeshav42 at yahoo.com (Keshava Nireshwalia) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:59:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <1381985988.77156.YahooMailNeo@web122406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Elections confirm new responsibilities.Good luck to all of you!   Prof. Keshava Nireshwalia,M.Sc.,M.Ed.,D.F.P.Tech.,M.I.S.T.E.,M.I.S.T.D., Consultant, Trainer & Auditor ISO 9001,17025,14000,18000, 22000,etc. Reliance Advisor No.20095240;  Tel: 91-821-2342612; Mob: 094818 14418. Ex-Adjunct Professor, JSS University, Mysore; Partner- N J Associates Retd Sr Scientist, CFTRI, Mysore; Ex-Sr Professor(Biotech), Kathmandu Univ, Nepal,etc; Life Member, MCC & Industries/APFS/AMI/NSI/AFST(I)/ISTD, etc. On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:36 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Good people all. My congratulations. --srs (iPad) On 16-Oct-2013, at 14:52, William Drake wrote: Hi > > >As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. > > >Best, > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > >********************************************************** >William J. Drake >International Fellow & Lecturer >  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >  University of Zurich, Switzerland >Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,  >  ICANN, www.ncuc.org >william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >  www.williamdrake.org >*********************************************************** > ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Oct 17 01:17:12 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:17:12 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Brenden, read with interest. I particularly noted “Let us also not forget that ICANN and its oversight are the main topic of the meeting”. Is there some specific background to this claim? Is this really a conference specifically about ICANN oversight (and if it is, do we really think that is a good idea given other current issues?) Ian Peter From: Brenden Kuerbis Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu ; Mawaki Chango Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Norbert Bollow ; Anja Kovacs Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Hello, On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including CS proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. Apologies for the cross-post. I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move ICANN away from unilateral oversight: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org Thanks, Mawaki On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Anja Kovacs wrote: > I do want to > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the consensus > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have expressed > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I think it > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained opposition”. That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are strongly in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend political capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a decision in favor. Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a consensus decision from being reached. If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in favor, most organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would never reach any decisions. > we are effectively working against each other here. Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some of the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action, I strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working against each other here”. In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign it does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter it could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter it could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an > alternative. If that could be a solution for all No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since I've already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat them again. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lucabelli at hotmail.it Thu Oct 17 05:58:03 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:58:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms Message-ID: Dear all I would like to invite you to IGF workshop N° 340 Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms that I am organising in partnership with Net Neutrality User Forum, from Republic of Korea. The workshop will take place on 23 October (i.e. Day 2) from 14:30 to 16:00, in Room #4 Uluwatu 1. The discussions held during this workshop will be an important basis for the Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality that will take place on 25 October (i.e. Day 4) from 9:00 to 10:30 in Room #7 Kintamani 1. Both on-site and remote participation are welcome and encouraged.Below, you will find the workshop agenda as well as the list of panellists. See you in Bali!Luca Co-organisers:· Mr Luca Belli, CERSA, PRES Sorbonne University· Mr Chun Eung Hwi, Net Neutrality User ForumPanellists:· Mr Alejandro Pisanty, National Autonomous University of Mexico;· Ms Borami Kim, Net Neutrality User Forum of Korea;· Mr Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International;· Mr Stuart Hamilton, International Federation of Library Associations;· Ms Roxana Radu, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies;· Mr Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for Change;· Ms Narine Khachatryan, Media Education Center;· Ms Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI;· Mr Michele Bellavite, ETNO;· Mr Frédéric Donck, Internet Society.Agenda:The workshop will start with a brief introduction by Mr Luca Belli, the moderator, aimed at setting the scene and structure the debate.Subsequently, two short keynotes will be delivered by Ms Borami Kim and Dr Alejandro Pisanty. Ms Kim will expose the “Net Neutrality User's Forum of Korea perspective on the benefits of network neutrality policies on end-users' rights”, whereas Dr Pisanty’s intervention will scrutinise the evolution “From Net Neutrality to Not Neutrality”.After having elucidated their perspectives, the keynote-speakers will engage in an interactive discussion, together with the other members of the panel. The discussion will be guided by the moderator and will explore such questions as a) what are the technical bases of NN? b) can such technical principles be properly translated into effective regulation? c) which Internet traffic management (ITM) practices hold promise to jeopardise end-users’ rights? d) how can fundamental rights and/or consumers’ rights be adversely affected by ITM measures? d) what kind of regulatory approach (if any) might be deemed as efficient in order to preserve the network neutrality principle?The audience will be involved in the discussion, which will be characterised by an open and inclusive format. In order to guarantee the liveliness of the debate, the participants will be asked to provide concise answers and statements (i.e. less than 2-minute-long). Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Oct 17 06:23:03 2013 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:23:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] INVITATION! Disco-tech at the Bali IGF In-Reply-To: <525F6B23.9090708@apc.org> References: <20131016131651.1E3121093E445@lists.apcwomen.org> <525F6B23.9090708@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette: Thank you for the cross post. I look forward to attend the event. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Thursday, October 17, 2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > Apologies for cross posts. Please all of you who are in Bali, come to > this! > > Anriette > ---------------------- > > Dear friends! > > DO YOU WANT TO FEEL MORE IN CONTROL OF YOUR ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS? COME TO > THE APC TACTICAL TECH DISCO-TECH! > > The security of digital networks and information is becoming increasingly > important to all internet users due to the increase in incidences of > governments and corporations spying on netizens and human rights defenders. > Journalists, democracy activists, women human rights defenders and sexual > rights activists, who use ICTs to report on, and campaign against, human > rights abuses face surveillance, censorship, information security > vulnerabilities, and information security compromises that can be life > threatening.1 <#141c4baee9b7920a_sdfootnote1sym> > > To shed light on the practical steps that members of civil society can > take to protect themselves and their activism, APC and Tactical Tech are > hosting a peer-learning session on the night before the global IGF in Bali, > 21 October 2013. > > We're calling it “the Disco-tech” because the format of the event will be > very unique. Participants can learn about technological solutions in an > inspiring and relaxed yet high-energy atmosphere. > > Experts and activists will be talking about tools and experiences with > online surveillance, safety, the right to privacy and anonymity. > Participants will have the opportunity to set up stations to share > technological tools, information or discuss specific issues. A “key signing > party” and an introduction to encryption will be held in parallel. > > Event details > > - > > Date/time: 21 October 19:00 – 22:00 > - > > Venue: Mantra Nusa Dua2 <#141c4baee9b7920a_sdfootnote2sym> ballroom > - > > Transport: IGF shuttle bus > - > > Attendance: Approx. 100 people > - > > Food: Light snacks and drinks > > We really hope that you can join us. Please bring your colleagues and > partners as well. Speakers from all over the world include: Shahzad Ahmad, > Bytes for All Pakistan; Ellery Biddle, Global Voices; Sarah Clarke, Pen > International; Mahmood Enayat, Small Media Foundation; Robert Guerra, > Citizen Lab; Gerard Harris, Deflect.ca; Octavia Jonsdottir, IREX; Nadine > Moawad, APC; M. Chris Riley, Mozilla; and Bobby Soriano, Tactical Tech. > > See you in Bali! > > Please RSVP to: > Mallory Knodel, APC - mallory at apc.org 'mallory at apc.org');> > Gillo Cutrupi, TTC - gillo at tacticaltech.org 'gillo at tacticaltech.org');> > > 1 <#141c4baee9b7920a_sdfootnote1anc>Alex Comninos, > http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/PRINT_ISSUE_Cyberseguridad_EN.pdf > > 2 <#141c4baee9b7920a_sdfootnote2anc> http://www.mantranusadua.com/ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 17 08:19:45 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:19:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the Internet". The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for a surprise very soon. :) fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/17/2013 02:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Brenden, read with interest. I particularly noted “Let us also not > forget that ICANN and its oversight are the main topic of the meeting”. > > Is there some specific background to this claim? Is this really a > conference specifically about ICANN oversight (and if it is, do we > really think that is a good idea given other current issues?) > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Brenden Kuerbis > *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:20 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > ; Mawaki Chango > > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Norbert Bollow > ; Anja Kovacs > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil > will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > > Hello, > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > > > > > 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including > CS proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both > President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. > > > > Apologies for the cross-post. > > I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond > asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and > to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed > agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move > ICANN away from unilateral oversight: > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ > > > > > --------------------------------------- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > > I do want to > > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and > > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. > > *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. > > > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points > > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the > consensus > > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have > expressed > > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I > think it > > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been > > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. > > The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained > opposition”. > That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are > strongly > in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain > opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend > political > capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a > decision > in favor. > > Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not > expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a > consensus decision from being reached. > > If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in > favor, most > organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would > never > reach any decisions. > > > we are effectively working against each other here. > > Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in > some of > the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to > discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some > action, I > strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working > against each other here”. > > In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will > co-sign it > does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits > action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first > letter it > could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits > letter it > could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do > understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. > > > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an > > alternative. If that could be a solution for all > > No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since > I've > already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present > letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat > them again. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Oct 17 10:22:50 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:22:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> On Oct 17, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will > probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the > Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the > Internet". > > The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this > huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for > a surprise very soon. :) I have no knowledge of what the agenda for the Rio meeting will be, but note that these are two distinct items in the Montevideo Statement - (1) - They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. This would appear to be similar to "forms and ways to achieve pluriparticipative international Internet governance" (2) They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. This would appear to be similar to moving "ICANN away from unilateral oversight", as noted by Brenden. I imagine that both topics will enjoy significant discussion at the meeting. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Absence of an agenda does not equate to lack of an agenda... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 17 10:39:30 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:39:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> Message-ID: <525FF6A2.4000508@cafonso.ca> Actually, no one knows details of the agenda so far, of course (and the IGF might be a good opportunity to advance on this) -- we know only the scope from the point of view of the BR gov as expressed by Rousseff. frt rgds --c.a. On 10/17/2013 11:22 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 17, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will >> probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve >> pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the >> Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the >> Internet". >> >> The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this >> huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for >> a surprise very soon. :) > > I have no knowledge of what the agenda for the Rio meeting will be, but > note that these are two distinct items in the Montevideo Statement - > > (1) - They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > > This would appear to be similar to "forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance" > > (2) They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. > > This would appear to be similar to moving "ICANN away from > unilateral oversight", as noted by Brenden. > > I imagine that both topics will enjoy significant discussion at > the meeting. > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. Absence of an agenda does not equate > to lack of an agenda... > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 17 12:00:54 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:30:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Fadi_Che?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?had=E9=3A_Affirmation_of_Commitments_needs_to_become_contr?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?act_between_=27ICANN_and_you=27?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <526009B6.2010009@itforchange.net> The clearest statement I have heard till now from ICANN that US oversight is not acceptable... and that FoC is but a US gov contract Much more than what many of the civil society are ready to say or commit to. However, it is easier to talk about a contract between ICANN and people than to come up with the actual means and processes of such a (social) contract. But good to state the principles that then opens up thinking and possible concrete proposals. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Internet Policy] Fadi Chehadé: Affirmation of Commitments needs to become contract between 'ICANN and you' Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:16:00 +0530 From: Vinay Kesari To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org Dear all, Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, spoke this evening at the Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013 in New Delhi, and made some very interesting statements, including the following (which I paraphrase): * The Affirmation of Commitments needs to change from being a contract between ICANN and the US Government, to a contract between 'ICANN and you'. * The handling of the IANA function needs to be structured in keeping with the idea that it is the 'root of the world' rather than of any one country. * ICANN headquarters would be split between Los Angeles, Istanbul and Singapore, and hiring in Los Angeles is to be frozen. I will post links to the video from the event as soon as it is up, as well as a more detailed report on his other remarks, including on Brazil, the role of industry, and multilateralism. Regards, Vinay Kesari https://twitter.com/vinaykesari -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 17 12:02:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:32:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Fadi_Che?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?had=E9=3A_Affirmation_of_Commitments_needs_to_become_contr?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?act_between_=27ICANN_and_you=27?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <526009FF.7070400@itforchange.net> Please see below - a forward from an ISOC list. The clearest statement I have heard till now from ICANN that US oversight is not acceptable... and that FoC is but a US gov contract Much more than what many of the civil society are ready to say or commit to. However, it is easier to talk about a contract between ICANN and people than to come up with the actual means and processes of such a (social) contract. But good to state the principles that then opens up thinking and possible concrete proposals. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Internet Policy] Fadi Chehadé: Affirmation of Commitments needs to become contract between 'ICANN and you' Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:16:00 +0530 From: Vinay Kesari To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org Dear all, Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, spoke this evening at the Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013 in New Delhi, and made some very interesting statements, including the following (which I paraphrase): * The Affirmation of Commitments needs to change from being a contract between ICANN and the US Government, to a contract between 'ICANN and you'. * The handling of the IANA function needs to be structured in keeping with the idea that it is the 'root of the world' rather than of any one country. * ICANN headquarters would be split between Los Angeles, Istanbul and Singapore, and hiring in Los Angeles is to be frozen. I will post links to the video from the event as soon as it is up, as well as a more detailed report on his other remarks, including on Brazil, the role of industry, and multilateralism. Regards, Vinay Kesari https://twitter.com/vinaykesari -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 17 13:33:38 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:33:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> Message-ID: At 16:22 17/10/2013, John Curran wrote: >I have no knowledge of what the agenda for the Rio meeting will be, >but note that these are two distinct items in the Montevideo Statement - Dear John, there are always two faces to a coin. I am quite glad to hear an USSH participative opinon, our eventual decision being to join forces or not. >(1) - They identified the need for ongoing effort to address >Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze >community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global >multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > This would appear to be similar to "forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance" If I had to define myself as an IUser, I would say that I am multistakeholderist and anti-pluriparticipativist, as far as I understand those terms. Also, I understand the concepts of the WSIS and accept that one may lobby to refine a favorably brain washed understanding (in keeping in mind the non-English binding versions) but I have not the singlest idea of what "the community" may be (except the USSH Inc.: the US StakeHolders Incorporated in Montevideo?). A common polynym vocabulary would be of the essence for our global world (or is it the total world? what is the adjective for "whole" as in "the whole is larger than the sum of its parts"?) This should be the first task for an international meeting. >(2) They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA >functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, >including all governments, participate on an equal footing. > This would appear to be similar to moving "ICANN away from > unilateral oversight", as noted by Brenden. Correct: - What USSH wants for three decades (our 1984 opposing agreement, cf. RFC 921) is the IANA under multistakeholder cooperation on an equal footing for every government and ... US coordinated. You know centers in LA and Turkey and Singapore. Everyone can participate ("Public comment periods are provided before final standards approval and adoption" ... by USSH without appeal procedure): pluriparticipatism!=multistakeholderism !!! - ITU wants every Telcos too within the equal footing. Never mind, in case we really get a conflict, the real emergency back-up root is at Public DNS (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4). I am ready to the end of the years old "IANA war": http://googliana.org. - What we want is the IANA to be under concerted multistakeholdership on an equal footing for everyone, including you and me. >I imagine that both topics will enjoy significant discussion at the meeting. Be sure discussions will start before the meeting. Actually, they have started (http://bramsummit.org). jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 17 14:22:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:52:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Rousseff UN speech vrs India CIRP proposal - WAS - OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion? In-Reply-To: References: <525DF98C.505@ciroap.org> <525EAA6D.7030204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52602ACA.408@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as > offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when > states commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the > best track record when it comes to making itself accountable before > international human rights institutions for its domestic policies > (neither incidentally has the US). One must bear in mind that domestic > surveillance systems are being built in India and that there has been > quite a lot of resistance to government transparency when it comes to > blocking or interception (it is in this context that the US activities > are sometimes offered as justification for domestic policy). I do not > therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as President > Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states to be > accountable to individuals. Now that is an important point to come to. In fact, I see no real difference between what Rousseff said in her UN speech and what India proposed in the CIRP proposal, other than the obvious fact that the former dealt more with higher level principles and the CIRP proposal with specifics. (There is this relatively minor thing about 'oversight role' of CIRP, a position India was always open about and it its recent WGEC submission does seek to separate oversight part from general public policy issues). I read Rousseff's UN statement again - the principal operational part of it is "The United Nations must play a leading role in the effort to regulate the conduct of States with regard to these technologies". I am happy to hear arguments to the contrary. On the other hand, one of the proposed seven specific tasks of the CIRP was "Promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development". This is similar to Russeff making numerous references to human rights in her speech while the main thrust was /*the need for a new UN mechanism to regulate state conduc//t/*. So, I really think that Rousseff's speech isnt much different from India's CIRP proposal. Maybe, the actual difference is that Brazil has shown guts to make it clear that it means business and is not going to be cowed down by pressure - most strongly shown by the cancellation of US trip which was really really big.... On the other hand, India has clearly been weak kneed, and very vulnerable to all kinds of pressure. External pressure - chiefly from the US, and of a very intense kind. And internal pressure- from the industry, largely ochestrated by US companies, (the chief actor being a US telecom that is quite a villain even within US civil society sector), and unfortunately, also many civil society actors within India who in my view have taken a rather one-sided view about this issue. Now, if you think I being uncharitable to the involved Indian actors here, I am happy to be convinced that Rousseff's UN speech and India's CIRP proposal are really so different for one to be welcomed and celebrated by civil society, and the other, largely, to be considered worthy of nothing but contempt. For me, they are not so different. The only difference is - one, of the timing (but then, India's proposal was active, and Rousseff's speech reactive - and there is something to said in favour of foresight and active approach, and coming up with specific details ) . Second, Brazil clearly looks like it means business, while India, at least some quarters of the establishment, allowed themselves to be browbeaten. In the process, it handed over a crucial geo-political leadership advantage to Brazil... I dont mind much, as long as it it leads to greater global justice - but within India, there would at some time be some analysis if this was not a major lost opportunity. Regards, parminder > > I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to > surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a > surveillance order if you never find out about it. > > Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables > individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the > International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does > not really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a > system in which it is accountable to individuals in an international > human rights forum. > > See you at the IGF :) > Chinmayi > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote: >> >> We can't overlook that the United States is also a member of >> the Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, >> which is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom >> House survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has >> suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is quite >> debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in >> opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet >> governance taken by the FOC states. >> >> >> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not >> really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These >> Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of >> telecommunications”) in the end. >> >> It appears from her speech that President Rousseff does want UN >> oversight of countries with respect to the Internet. Given that >> her concern seems to be that there should be some accountability >> with respect to human rights, I sympathise. The Indian government >> seems to be in I-told-you-so mode now, pointing out quite >> correctly that while everybody else was being told off for human >> rights violations, the countries telling them off were also >> committing huge violations. While I certainly do not subscribe to >> the idea that one nation's human rights violations somehow >> justify another's (I still would not support the resolution that >> India presented to the UN last year), > > Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human > rights violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference > between US violating rights of people in a situation where it > admits of no avenues of recourse, even at a theoretical -political > level, and when such things happen within a political system which > has its dynamics that can be engaged to avoid or reduce such > violation. CIRP like global governance proposals are about having > a global political regime within which then efforts can be made to > fight for our rights, the way we do within the Indian political > system. NSA issue cannot be put as just one country doing rights > violation against another country doing it. It is of a qualitative > different kind, from the very important issue of domestic > surveillances that we all struggle against. > >> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing >> as the best model. > > Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what > 'should be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a > thing. > > Best , parminder >> >> I have never been comfortable with thinking about issues purely >> in terms of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the >> ITRs debates - that many were stepping away from the actual text >> and merely pointing out who was signing as an argument for not >> signing. Isn't it better to just discuss the specifics of >> treaties and organisations and determine on that basis whether it >> is necessary, helpful or terrible to subscribe to them? >> >> Best, >> Chinmayi >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> > wrote: >> >> On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>> >>> For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online >>> Coalition , a >>> group of governments committed to advance Internet >>> freedom, it would send a positive message to the >>> international community. Countries that join the coalition >>> endorse a statement supporting the principle that all people >>> enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline. From >>> Latin America, only Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the >>> coalition. On the other hand, other countries that are not >>> members of the coalition, such as Russia, China and India, >>> have taken steps in the wrong direction. For example, in the >>> past, they have presented draft resolutions to the UN >>> General assembly, which would have put in risk Internet >>> governance. For Brazil, joining the Freedom Online Coalition >>> would be a turning point and a step in the opposite >>> direction, demonstrating that it takes some distance from >>> its partners in groups such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, >>> India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). >>> >> >> It would be very interesting to read a reply from the >> perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United >> States is also a member of the Freedom Online Coalition. Not >> to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked a full point lower >> than India in the Freedom House survey. Given that the >> "Internet freedom" slogan has suffered a serious blow from >> the NSA revelations, it is quite debatable what was the >> "wrong direction" to take in opposition to the status-quoist >> position on Internet governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for >> consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 >> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub | >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are >> strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at >> your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Oct 17 22:29:40 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:29:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [nncoalition] Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms References: Message-ID: <9C41CD64-6714-4F39-BB7E-BA90DF328027@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Luca Belli > Date: October 17, 2013 at 6:10:23 PM GMT+8 > To: "nncoalition at mailman.edri.org" > Subject: [nncoalition] Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms > > Dear all, (apologies for cross-posting) > I would like to invite you to IGF workshop N° 340 Network Neutrality: from Architecture to Norms that I am organising in partnership with Net Neutrality User Forum, from Republic of Korea. > > The workshop will take place on 23 October (i.e. Day 2) from 14:30 to 16:00, in Room #4 Uluwatu 1. The discussions held during this workshop will be an important basis for the Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality that will take place on 25 October (i.e. Day 4) from 9:00 to 10:30 in Room #7 Kintamani 1. > > Both on-site and remote participation are welcome and encouraged. > > Below, you will find the workshop agenda as well as the list of panellists. > > See you in Bali! > > Luca > > > > Co-organisers: > > · Mr Luca Belli, CERSA, PRES Sorbonne University > > · Mr Chun Eung Hwi, Net Neutrality User Forum > > Panellists: > > · Mr Alejandro Pisanty, National Autonomous University of Mexico; > > · Ms Borami Kim, Net Neutrality User Forum of Korea; > > · Mr Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International; > > · Mr Stuart Hamilton, International Federation of Library Associations; > > · Ms Roxana Radu, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies; > > · Mr Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for Change; > > · Ms Narine Khachatryan, Media Education Center; > > · Ms Fatima Cambronero, AGEIA DENSI; > > · Mr Michele Bellavite, ETNO; > > · Mr Frédéric Donck, Internet Society. > > Agenda: > > The workshop will start with a brief introduction by Mr Luca Belli, the moderator, aimed at setting the scene and structure the debate. > > Subsequently, two short keynotes will be delivered by Ms Borami Kim and Dr Alejandro Pisanty. Ms Kim will expose the “Net Neutrality User's Forum of Korea perspective on the benefits of network neutrality policies on end-users' rights”, whereas Dr Pisanty’s intervention will scrutinise the evolution “From Net Neutrality to Not Neutrality”. > > After having elucidated their perspectives, the keynote-speakers will engage in an interactive discussion, together with the other members of the panel. The discussion will be guided by the moderator and will explore such questions as a) what are the technical bases of NN? b) can such technical principles be properly translated into effective regulation? c) which Internet traffic management (ITM) practices hold promise to jeopardise end-users’ rights? d) how can fundamental rights and/or consumers’ rights be adversely affected by ITM measures? d) what kind of regulatory approach (if any) might be deemed as efficient in order to preserve the network neutrality principle? > > The audience will be involved in the discussion, which will be characterised by an open and inclusive format. In order to guarantee the liveliness of the debate, the participants will be asked to provide concise answers and statements (i.e. less than 2-minute-long). > > > > > > > Luca Belli > Doctorant en Droit Public > CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas > Sorbonne University > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Luca Belli > Doctorant en Droit Public > CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas > Sorbonne University > _______________________________________________ > NNcoalition mailing list > NNcoalition at mailman.edri.org > http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 17 23:26:43 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:26:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] Informal Dinner [IGC] in Bali Message-ID: Dear All, We would like to invite you to an informal IGC dinner. You will be required to pay for your own dinner and drinks but we will be making reservations so if you would like to join us for an informal dinner and a chance to catch up, please email coordinators at igcaucus.org The dinner will be from 7:00-9:00pm on the 20th. We are still trying to get confirmation for space for a room in which to have an onsite IGC meeting preferably before the IGF starts officially. For those who are interested in catching up over early morning (dawn) walk, that can also be arranged. Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 17 23:48:47 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:48:47 +0800 Subject: [governance] Informal Dinner [IGC] in Bali In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37969183-C3A3-441F-AD34-01A41B193304@ciroap.org> This overlaps with the Best Bits and Web We Want dinner. Strongly request you don't clash with it. Either merge them, or find another date. Replying from the airport, sorry for the curtness... On 18/10/2013, at 11:26 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We would like to invite you to an informal IGC dinner. You will be required to pay for your own dinner and drinks but we will be making reservations so if you would like to join us for an informal dinner and a chance to catch up, please email coordinators at igcaucus.org > > The dinner will be from 7:00-9:00pm on the 20th. We are still trying to get confirmation for space for a room in which to have an onsite IGC meeting preferably before the IGF starts officially. > > For those who are interested in catching up over early morning (dawn) walk, that can also be arranged. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Oct 18 00:03:19 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:03:19 +0800 Subject: [governance] Informal Dinner [IGC] in Bali In-Reply-To: <37969183-C3A3-441F-AD34-01A41B193304@ciroap.org> References: <37969183-C3A3-441F-AD34-01A41B193304@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Wednesday 23rd appears to be the one night that doesn't clash with other events... BD On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This overlaps with the Best Bits and Web We Want dinner. Strongly request you don't clash with it. Either merge them, or find another date. Replying from the airport, sorry for the curtness... > > On 18/10/2013, at 11:26 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> We would like to invite you to an informal IGC dinner. You will be required to pay for your own dinner and drinks but we will be making reservations so if you would like to join us for an informal dinner and a chance to catch up, please email coordinators at igcaucus.org >> >> The dinner will be from 7:00-9:00pm on the 20th. We are still trying to get confirmation for space for a room in which to have an onsite IGC meeting preferably before the IGF starts officially. >> >> For those who are interested in catching up over early morning (dawn) walk, that can also be arranged. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 18 01:08:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:08:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Informal Dinner [IGC] in Bali In-Reply-To: References: <37969183-C3A3-441F-AD34-01A41B193304@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131018070825.5b5ab85d@swan.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Ok... everyone please keep Wednesday 23rd evening free for the IGC informal dinner if possible... since I'll be making a reservation at a restaurant, I'll need to know how many people will attend this IGC dinner. So please let us know at coordinators at igcaucus.org by 12.00 noon on Monday 21 November if you'll be able to come. In the meantime we're still looking for a room for a more formal IGC meeting. Requests for agenda items are still welcome, either here on the list (but please use a different thread, not this one) or off-list at coordinators at igcaucus.org . Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:03:19 +0800 schrieb William Drake : > Wednesday 23rd appears to be the one night that doesn't clash with > other events... > > BD > > On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > > This overlaps with the Best Bits and Web We Want dinner. Strongly > > request you don't clash with it. Either merge them, or find > > another date. Replying from the airport, sorry for the curtness... > > > > On 18/10/2013, at 11:26 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > >> Dear All, > >> > >> We would like to invite you to an informal IGC dinner. You will be > >> required to pay for your own dinner and drinks but we will be > >> making reservations so if you would like to join us for an > >> informal dinner and a chance to catch up, please email > >> coordinators at igcaucus.org > >> > >> The dinner will be from 7:00-9:00pm on the 20th. We are still > >> trying to get confirmation for space for a room in which to have > >> an onsite IGC meeting preferably before the IGF starts officially. > >> > >> For those who are interested in catching up over early morning > >> (dawn) walk, that can also be arranged. > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> Sala > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > > Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > > knowledge hub > > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email > > unless necessary. > > > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 01:43:05 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:43:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS @ ICANN In-Reply-To: <525F47E2.8080008@apc.org> References: <157905DD-7B1D-41D0-8AD9-9F9DB8245C36@uzh.ch> <525F47E2.8080008@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks everybody for those nice words, NCSG is going to have more challenges with all those news coming these days. Rafik 2013/10/17 Anriette Esterhuysen > +1 Tracey > > Anriette > > > On 17/10/2013 01:43, Tracey Naughton wrote: > > This is great news. Such good people. Congratulations and thanks for your > work all. Tracey > > On 16/10/2013, at 8:22 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > As there's been bits of discussion here about the state of civil society > in IG, just a quick note to say that the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group > in ICANN just held an election and with 176 votes cast, Rafik Dammak was > elected chair, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Avri Doria, and Amr Elsadr were > elected to represent us on the GNSO Council. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 02:08:54 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:08:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Informal Dinner [IGC] in Bali In-Reply-To: <37969183-C3A3-441F-AD34-01A41B193304@ciroap.org> References: <37969183-C3A3-441F-AD34-01A41B193304@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <112F4CE3-33EC-4F88-8C8C-60F552D843AE@gmail.com> And please note we are putting together a Latin America dinner on the 21st Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > This overlaps with the Best Bits and Web We Want dinner. Strongly request you don't clash with it. Either merge them, or find another date. Replying from the airport, sorry for the curtness... > >> On 18/10/2013, at 11:26 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> We would like to invite you to an informal IGC dinner. You will be required to pay for your own dinner and drinks but we will be making reservations so if you would like to join us for an informal dinner and a chance to catch up, please email coordinators at igcaucus.org >> >> The dinner will be from 7:00-9:00pm on the 20th. We are still trying to get confirmation for space for a room in which to have an onsite IGC meeting preferably before the IGF starts officially. >> >> For those who are interested in catching up over early morning (dawn) walk, that can also be arranged. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 18 03:10:03 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:10:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] Bali visa on arrival etc Message-ID: <04A195D8-D367-4DEB-A2AF-EBFD4908E923@glocom.ac.jp> Visa on arrival, US$25 and various other currencies accepted, see attached picture. Looks like no credit cards. Airport seems to be at its busiest from around 8pm (just the local rumor). Long lines for the visa when I arrived last night, 30 minutes+ then longer wait for immigration procedure. Straight forward process but busy. Conference center is large, spacious. Rooms are permanent structures with solid walls. Common areas with weak aircon, rooms might be chilled, but not fully set-up yet so no idea what they will be like next week (be prepared.) Power strips in all workshop rooms and mainly european round 2 pin, with occasional universal. My hotel has universal power sockets. Weather is hot and sweaty. There are mosquitos. Nusa Dua is like a very large gated campus, conference center and a number of hotels inside. Shops inside, but more expensive than the mini-mart/k-mart etc outside. All good. Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: visa on arrival.JPG Type: image/jpg Size: 98765 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 18 05:40:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:10:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> On Thursday 17 October 2013 05:49 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will > probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the > Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the > Internet". > > The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this > huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for > a surprise very soon. :) This fact of ICANN's remit being a small part of the global IG ecology, and much else being in the need of even more urgent examination and 'meaningful' change, should be an important consideration here. This may mean that ICANN should not be promoted as a co-host or co-owner of the proposed summit, but just an important party that is closely involved. After all the current, post Snowden, crisis, as well as the corresponding outrage in Brazil, comes from entirely different quarters. In the circumstance, focussing the proposed summit just, or even largely, on ICANN oversight or independence will be inappropriate. parminder > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/17/2013 02:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Hi Brenden, read with interest. I particularly noted “Let us also not >> forget that ICANN and its oversight are the main topic of the meeting”. >> >> Is there some specific background to this claim? Is this really a >> conference specifically about ICANN oversight (and if it is, do we >> really think that is a good idea given other current issues?) >> >> Ian Peter >> >> *From:* Brenden Kuerbis >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:20 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> ; Mawaki Chango >> >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Norbert Bollow >> ; Anja Kovacs >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil >> will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 >> >> Hello, >> >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Mawaki Chango > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. Lastly, please note that a more substantive document (including >> CS proposed agenda) coming out of Bali should be addressed to both >> President Rousseff and Chair & CEO Chehade. >> >> >> >> Apologies for the cross-post. >> >> I'll take no position on the IGC crafting a letter. But moving beyond >> asserting civ soc's intention to shape the agenda of the Rio event and >> to Mawaki's last point, the IGP has posted some ideas for a proposed >> agenda. It includes specific, executable steps that can be taken to move >> ICANN away from unilateral oversight: >> >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------- >> Brenden Kuerbis >> Internet Governance Project >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: >> >> Anja Kovacs > > wrote: >> >> > I do want to >> > make it explicit, however, that this has not changed my stance and >> > that I remain as unconvinced of these arguments as before. >> >> *nod* You have made your view on this abundantly clear. >> >> > Let me maybe use this opportunity, though, to add two more points >> > about the process. Many might decide to keep quiet on the >> consensus >> > call for the proposed statement, but as so many people have >> expressed >> > discomfort about the statement during the past two days, I >> think it >> > would be quite the fallacy to think that 'consensus' has ever been >> > reached on this even if nobody stops this initiative. >> >> The precise definition of “consensus” is “lack of sustained >> opposition”. >> That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are >> strongly >> in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain >> opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend >> political >> capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a >> decision >> in favor. >> >> Expressions of discomfort are politically safe, in the sense of not >> expending political capital, precisely because they don't prevent a >> consensus decision from being reached. >> >> If “consensus” meant that every single person has to be in >> favor, most >> organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would >> never >> reach any decisions. >> >> > we are effectively working against each other here. >> >> Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in >> some of >> the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to >> discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some >> action, I >> strongly disagree with the view that “we are effectively working >> against each other here”. >> >> In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will >> co-sign it >> does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits >> action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first >> letter it >> could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits >> letter it >> could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do >> understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently. >> >> > I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an >> > alternative. If that could be a solution for all >> >> No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since >> I've >> already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present >> letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat >> them again. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Oct 18 05:41:58 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:41:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] Bali visa on arrival etc In-Reply-To: <04A195D8-D367-4DEB-A2AF-EBFD4908E923@glocom.ac.jp> References: <04A195D8-D367-4DEB-A2AF-EBFD4908E923@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:10, Adam Peake wrote: > Visa on arrival, US$25 and various other currencies accepted, see attached picture. Looks like no credit cards. > When i got to the Bali airport, there was what looked about a 2 hr line for immigration (or so I was told). This was after the line for buying the visa at the 'visa on arrival' window. But there are nice guys with badges that offer an express service for an extra 25, that avoids the line after buying the visa. So if you get there when the line is long - in my case longer than the zigzag extending down the corridor - i recommend you consider the express service. I did and was happy for it - though i admit i did have ever so slight anxiety just handing over my passport to a guy that walked away and went into a room I could not enter. avri -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 18 05:57:17 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:57:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) Message-ID: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all After communication by email with the IGF secretariat proved to be difficult, Sala and I decided that I'd chase them up in person... this is worked out, and we now have the following room booked for the IGC meeting for the “lunch break” slot on day 1 of the IGF (Tuesday Oct 22)... Kintamani 8 I will post a formal announcement with a draft agenda on the day before. Further suggestions and thoughts in regard to the agenda are still welcome, preferably by noon Oct 21 Bali time. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 06:06:02 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:06:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) In-Reply-To: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: thanks for this message. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* * *Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/10/18 Norbert Bollow > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > After communication by email with the IGF secretariat proved to be > difficult, Sala and I decided that I'd chase them up in person... > this is worked out, and we now have the following room booked for > the IGC meeting for the “lunch break” slot on day 1 of the IGF (Tuesday > Oct 22)... > > Kintamani 8 > > I will post a formal announcement with a draft agenda on the day > before. > > Further suggestions and thoughts in regard to the agenda are still > welcome, preferably by noon Oct 21 Bali time. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 18 06:33:13 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:03:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> Message-ID: <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> I agree with John's assessment that Montevideo statement may indeed be aiming at a larger IG ecology than just concerns ICANN plus' remit. Also of interest is Andrew's observations from the Delhi meeting, where there was this talk of getting orphan IG issues - which could be like net neutrality, intellectual property on internet etc - under a multistakeholder kind of arrangement - ICANN based, or otherwise. One always suspected that the multi stakeholder (MS) decision making in technical spaces was to be used and expanded to substantive Internet related public policy areas to then be expanded to all non Internet public policy and governance areas as well... (A recent attempt to develop a World Health Forum within the WHO was defeated largely by progressive global civil society actors in the health area.) And this way, what to my perhaps very opinionated self appears to be, a corporate dominated governance model is taking over tradtional democratic system of public policy making. Others may have different views though. But the good thing is, now that we are clearly faced with the proposition - we all can/ should now clearly express our views if we would like all kinds of substantive public policy issues to be decided by multistakeholder bodies a la ICANN etc, or we are better off with democracy as we know it..... parminder But the good thing is, the real issue is now in the open. On Thursday 17 October 2013 07:52 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 17, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will >> probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve >> pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the >> Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the >> Internet". >> >> The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this >> huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for >> a surprise very soon. :) > I have no knowledge of what the agenda for the Rio meeting will be, but > note that these are two distinct items in the Montevideo Statement - > > (1) - They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. > > This would appear to be similar to "forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance" > > (2) They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. > > This would appear to be similar to moving "ICANN away from > unilateral oversight", as noted by Brenden. > > I imagine that both topics will enjoy significant discussion at > the meeting. > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. Absence of an agenda does not equate > to lack of an agenda... > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 07:35:14 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:35:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Indian Center for DNS Security Announced Message-ID: http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/releases/release-17oct13-en -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 08:48:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 19:48:11 +0700 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: The Open (Internet) Society and Its Enemies: Can Multistakeholderism Survive "Information Dominance"? Message-ID: <002f01cecc00$50c83f10$f258bd30$@gmail.com> Since I will only be able to participate in a few sessions of BB because of other commitments I've done up a blogpost with some of my thoughts/concerns http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/ http://tinyurl.com/ke9ulqc Mike -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Oct 18 09:31:26 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:31:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: The Open (Internet) Society and Its Enemies: Can Multistakeholderism Survive "Information Dominance"? In-Reply-To: <002f01cecc00$50c83f10$f258bd30$@gmail.com> References: <002f01cecc00$50c83f10$f258bd30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 14:48 18/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Language: en-us > >Since I will only be able to participate in a few sessions of BB because of >other commitments I've done up a blogpost with some of my thoughts/concerns > >http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-open-internet-society-and-its-e >nemies-can-multistakeholderism-survive-information-dominance/ >http://tinyurl.com/ke9ulqc I am glad the we eventually talk about the real field rather than legal dreams. I felt alone at being the only one at counterwar! MSism is to polycracy what voting is to democracy. Information dominance is a polycratic phenomenon comparable to democractic lobbying. I suppose the world can roughly handle it as such a dominance is an unreachable and technically falsifiable objective (you lose a lot of credibility and therefore influence on your allies if you are shown wrong on one point, i.e. that your dominance is uncertain). What is more worrying at this layer ignorance, corruption and astroturfing on your own side. Please also note that information dominance is by brute force on data. Intellition, i.e. intelligent dot connecting between information (soft force on connected data) is far more worrying. It may build intellectually algorithmed "unrreals". This would then become kafkaesque: the data could then become the structural support of checked consistant "truth" of errors and misjudgments. This is what one may fear from "algorithmic govenances". One may prevent information dominance through security. One cannot prevent intellition dominance (you cannot block the thinking of someone or/and impeach him from being intelligent). Therefore, you can only oppose external intellition dominance by disinformation jamming, architectural precaution and proportional deterrance. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 18 10:35:28 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:35:28 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] IGC Meeting: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) References: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320F0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thx. Norbert, wise decision. Hope to be there. BTW is there any social event by the local host (gala dinner or something like that)? w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Fr 18.10.2013 11:57 An: IGC Betreff: [governance] IGC Meeting: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all After communication by email with the IGF secretariat proved to be difficult, Sala and I decided that I'd chase them up in person... this is worked out, and we now have the following room booked for the IGC meeting for the "lunch break" slot on day 1 of the IGF (Tuesday Oct 22)... Kintamani 8 I will post a formal announcement with a draft agenda on the day before. Further suggestions and thoughts in regard to the agenda are still welcome, preferably by noon Oct 21 Bali time. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 18 13:09:48 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:09:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca>,<526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> On Thursday 17 October 2013 05:49 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will > probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the > Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the > Internet". > > The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this > huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for > a surprise very soon. :) Yes, Carlos, but....if the community cannot come together on agreed mechanisms and institutions for global governance of the so-called "phone list" (really bad metaphor, by the way) how is it able to take on larger problems? In other words, if we can't do ICANN right, why should anyone think we can do anything else? I have always viewed ICANN as a test case of our capabilities for global governance, not as intrinsically interesting in itself. Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler problem (ICANN). -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 18 13:16:40 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:16:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org>,<52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________________ > I agree with John's assessment that Montevideo statement may indeed be > aiming at a larger IG ecology than just concerns ICANN plus' remit. Not really. True, it criticizes impact of surveillance on trust, but its only specific calls for reform pertain to names and numbers governance. > Also of interest is Andrew's observations from the Delhi meeting, where > there was this talk of getting orphan IG issues - which could be like > net neutrality, intellectual property on internet etc - under a > multistakeholder kind of arrangement - ICANN based, or otherwise. Oh sure, throw in "little" issues like IPR and net neutrality and you're sure to paralyze the summit and make sure it doesn't accomplish anything. > And this way, what to my perhaps very opinionated self appears to be, a > corporate dominated governance model is taking over tradtional > democratic system of public policy making. Others may have different > views though. > > But the good thing is, now that we are clearly faced with the > proposition - we all can/ should now clearly express our views if we > would like all kinds of substantive public policy issues to be decided > by multistakeholder bodies a la ICANN etc, or we are better off with > democracy as we know it..... democracy as we know it doesn't scale. or perhaps we can test this proposition by having a vote-off on whether China's government should take over India. who do you think would get the largest number of votes? ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 14:54:49 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 23:54:49 +0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?IPS_=E2=80=93_Skype_Gets_Dark_in_Karachi_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=7C_Inter_Press_Service?= Message-ID: <6D09358C-86D9-46DD-9671-F1F3B6ED06CD@gmail.com> http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/10/skype-gets-dark-in-karachi/ Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 18 18:15:05 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 06:15:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <985F4C9B-5F2C-4D97-8505-4A7D1CE25386@acm.org> Hi, In a sense, good questions that could be asked of any group whether it was intergovernmental, industry, civil society or multistakeholder. If you think a UN based group is going to don its blue helmets and go deal with these issues, just look at the threshold one needs to reach before the UN deal with situation were people who are being killed in the various genocidal Besides I do not think there are many here who want to go to war on this issues. In another sense, I think these question might better be cast as issues for work to be done: How can these multistakeholder organizations ... And then we can spend our time on figuring out how do it. I would contend that multistakeholder organizations bringing, as they might if they worked on these orphaned problems. all the capabilities of all stakeholders (including those IGOs) into play, have a better chance of finding peaceful solutions than the UN blue helmets. avri On 19 Oct 2013, at 04:17, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (whatever it is, as we are still discussing that) make rules that > subject listeners to the rule of law at home, and prohibit the massive > monitoring of other peoples' societies abroad? > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (organization/network) impose all ports, > all services neutrality on network operators so corruptly in bed with > governments around the world that no one knows how to tease out all > the criminal connections? > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder decide whether > "sharing services" are allowed to use monitoring technology that makes > supposedly private sharing the material for "customized advertising" > and "personal endorsement"? Is fairness regulation in the economies > of the world irrelevant to the future of the Net, or are > "multi-stakeholder" organizations going to get more regulatory power > than national governments are presently prepared to exercise on behalf > of their citizens? > > Question: How are these multi-stakeholder organizations planning to > deal with governments that refuse to accept their decisions? Is a > future ICANN going to manufacture its own blue helmets, and send them > into Saudi Arabia or China? > > Conclusion: Isn't this really a bunch of statements from increasingly threatened current structures designed to make > users of the Net think that somebody is looking out for their > fundamental rights and collective economic interests, when in fact the > spying, data-mining and pillaging is going to go smoothly on precisely > as usual? > > - -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Oct 18 19:00:57 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 01:00:57 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Cheha, etc. In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 19:09 18/10/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Yes, Carlos, but....if the community cannot come together on agreed >mechanisms and institutions for global governance of the so-called >"phone list" (really bad metaphor, by the way) how is it able to >take on larger problems? >In other words, if we can't do ICANN right, why should anyone think >we can do anything else? >I have always viewed ICANN as a test case of our capabilities for >global governance, not as intrinsically interesting in itself. Milton, I see and agree with your point. This is precisely why the statUS-quo is much needed: it represents an "afforable" and organized emergence of the cyberspace intricacy for all. However, an emergence is a dynamic form of ballance and there are two big architectonic forces that oppose it: 1. when we designed it, the root was not to be managed that way. When Postel and Mokapetris used it to specify and design the DNS they known that its was an heterarchy inherited from the real world (the then existing data neworks and monopolies) and not a hierarchy as was their local initial NIC. This why they designed the DNS to support 35,635 roots. 2. the convenient stability provided by the status-quo was only initially convenient. Further on it was constrain by the US coordination. This helped the US industry but flavored it as resulting from US influence, imposing an US vision of the network, subject to US laws. This necessarily indusced centripetal forces. >Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, >the more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are >able to develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate >and simpler problem (ICANN). We all know there are alternative technically workable solutions, but nobody knows where their work would politically lead us. As I said a legal, political, economical, military status-quo could satisfy everyone, but (1) it being US coordinated is an increasing problem (2) we do not know how long the US centralizing umbrella is going to protect us from the Internet intrinsicaly distributed architecture and (3) if the USG reduces its centralization constraints we have no experience of the consquences and of the alternative centralization forces (copyrights, Google, regional interests). This means two main questions: - how long do we have to prepare a transition? - a transition to what? What I presently observe is that is precisely the time when IAB removed itself from the responsibility of an architectural guidance toward a better internet. As an alternative the OpenUse Montevidean alliance (ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IAB, W3C, RIRs) adheres to a market driven innovation (RFC 6852) without obsoleting RFC 3869 and 3935. This can only mean one thing: an USCF leadership (or who ever manages the US Cyber Command budget). This resumes the initial ARPA sponsorship. Things are more complex than in 1972 or 1983, howver the Snowden clarification show came just in time to lift some inhibitions, confirm the dual R&D with Google and unit the OECD Now, time has come, I think, to completely reread the Internet RFCs from a different and more mature architectonical point of view. The coming months are interesting as it seems that this reread will be military based, with a focus on the security of the cyber operations theater. This is why I would be interested in having an-online full copy of the NATO's Tallin manual. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Oct 18 21:45:08 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 09:45:08 +0800 Subject: Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 References: Message-ID: <1877ED71-E4B4-46FA-A920-5C849177F7FB@uzh.ch> Perhaps of interest Begin forwarded message: > From: William Drake > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 > Date: October 19, 2013 9:36:14 AM GMT+08:00 > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Hi Milton > > On Oct 19, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler problem (ICANN) > > There's two problems with this. First, Dilma wants to talk about a broader agenda, and many other governments have said the same for years in different ways. Second, Fadi and the coalition he's coordinating with wants to talk about a broader agenda. Both sides have made that clear recently, and are unlikely to be persuaded to the contrary ex ante by blogs etc. Maybe if efforts to discuss the broader issues——the holes in the gov architecture that CS has been noting since 2003—hit a road block they'll collapse back to something narrowly focused on ICANN, but I wouldn't presume it a this point. > > We're all in blue skies guessing land as to where this will go, and absent clear info a number of folks have been projecting their preferred narratives onto the space. So I will too. I start from the assumption we should listen to what the powers that be have been saying for quite some time. And what I've heard for quite some time now, is > > 1. A change in the AoC that removes or alters the USG roles to be at best a 'first among equals' in some sense, with greater encouragement to the GAC to step up. This has been US policy, so its adoption is not quite "the world turns its back on USG" and so. Question of timing and dynamics—Snowden revelations obviously accelerated things in a wild card way that was not envisioned or desired. > > 2. A parallel change to the USG role in the IANA contract cutting ICANN looser and spinning toward GAC oversight. > > 3. Consideration of some sort of new multistakeholder process for orphaned issues etc. This could prove the hardest, as one assumes G77 and China will still want a UN basis, which wouldn't be congenial to I-orgs et al. > > The first two pieces are easy enough to imagine, although they will be difficult for the USG to sell domestically. Obama hardly needs the Tea Party and libertarian/conservative think tanks running around hyperventilating about him being the "man who gave away the Internet" at this moment, especially before the mid-term elections. And there'd have to be a lot of hand holding viz. Versign and other contracted parties, major corporate users, US agencies, and nervous allies, to assure them nothing's seriously changed re: stability and security. > > The third one's anyone's guess. No new IGOs has been the mantra. CSTD is obviously too feeble to be of any use. So something else that can pass muster with governments—? And obviously, there can't be ICANN mission creep here, although there will probably be Fadi creep…ICANN will have to be a supportive partner in some manner. I'd have preferred appending a working group mechanism to the IGF to strengthen its' role, but a lot of people remain fixed on preserving its pristine status as a dialogue space full stop given the no-membership problem etc. > > There's also talk, e.g. Dilma, about some new multilateral overlay on certain issues. That too would run into standard UN divisions unless it's a pretty generic statement of principles. This could make Wolfgang's Focus Session on Principles, as well as the first FC led by Brazil, particularly interesting. > > Cheers > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 21:49:09 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 21:49:09 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <1877ED71-E4B4-46FA-A920-5C849177F7FB@uzh.ch> References: <1877ED71-E4B4-46FA-A920-5C849177F7FB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: I just want to take the opportunity share with you http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/internet_and_statecraft_brazil_and_the_future_of_internet_governance-93553 And let you know that Everton Lucero ( http://www.linkedin.com/pub/everton-lucero/0/448/920) will be here representing Brazil at IGF and (Brazilians hope) moving forward :-) C On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM, William Drake wrote: > Perhaps of interest > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *William Drake > *Subject: **Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & > Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014* > *Date: *October 19, 2013 9:36:14 AM GMT+08:00 > *To: *Milton L Mueller > *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Hi Milton > > On Oct 19, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the > more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to > develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler > problem (ICANN) > > > There's two problems with this. First, Dilma wants to talk about a > broader agenda, and many other governments have said the same for years in > different ways. Second, Fadi and the coalition he's coordinating with > wants to talk about a broader agenda. Both sides have made that clear > recently, and are unlikely to be persuaded to the contrary ex ante by blogs > etc. Maybe if efforts to discuss the broader issues——the holes in the gov > architecture that CS has been noting since 2003—hit a road block they'll > collapse back to something narrowly focused on ICANN, but I wouldn't > presume it a this point. > > We're all in blue skies guessing land as to where this will go, and absent > clear info a number of folks have been projecting their preferred > narratives onto the space. So I will too. I start from the assumption we > should listen to what the powers that be have been saying for quite some > time. And what I've heard for quite some time now, is > > 1. A change in the AoC that removes or alters the USG roles to be at best > a 'first among equals' in some sense, with greater encouragement to the GAC > to step up. This has been US policy, so its adoption is not quite "the > world turns its back on USG" and so. Question of timing and > dynamics—Snowden revelations obviously accelerated things in a wild card > way that was not envisioned or desired. > > 2. A parallel change to the USG role in the IANA contract cutting ICANN > looser and spinning toward GAC oversight. > > 3. Consideration of some sort of new multistakeholder process for > orphaned issues etc. This could prove the hardest, as one assumes G77 and > China will still want a UN basis, which wouldn't be congenial to I-orgs et > al. > > The first two pieces are easy enough to imagine, although they will be > difficult for the USG to sell domestically. Obama hardly needs the Tea > Party and libertarian/conservative think tanks running around > hyperventilating about him being the "man who gave away the Internet" at > this moment, especially before the mid-term elections. And there'd have to > be a lot of hand holding viz. Versign and other contracted parties, major > corporate users, US agencies, and nervous allies, to assure them nothing's > seriously changed re: stability and security. > > The third one's anyone's guess. No new IGOs has been the mantra. CSTD is > obviously too feeble to be of any use. So something else that can pass > muster with governments—? And obviously, there can't be ICANN mission > creep here, although there will probably be Fadi creep…ICANN will have to > be a supportive partner in some manner. I'd have preferred appending a > working group mechanism to the IGF to strengthen its' role, but a lot of > people remain fixed on preserving its pristine status as a dialogue space > full stop given the no-membership problem etc. > > There's also talk, e.g. Dilma, about some new multilateral overlay on > certain issues. That too would run into standard UN divisions unless it's > a pretty generic statement of principles. This could make Wolfgang's Focus > Session on Principles, as well as the first FC led by Brazil, particularly > interesting. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Oct 18 22:00:14 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 10:00:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) In-Reply-To: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi FWIW the MAG has a meeting then with Asst. SG Gass, so you'll be minus a few people. Best, Bill On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > After communication by email with the IGF secretariat proved to be > difficult, Sala and I decided that I'd chase them up in person... > this is worked out, and we now have the following room booked for > the IGC meeting for the “lunch break” slot on day 1 of the IGF (Tuesday > Oct 22)... > > Kintamani 8 > > I will post a formal announcement with a draft agenda on the day > before. > > Further suggestions and thoughts in regard to the agenda are still > welcome, preferably by noon Oct 21 Bali time. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 22:06:24 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:06:24 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1877ED71-E4B4-46FA-A920-5C849177F7FB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Brazil does have a big delegation this year. Many from CGI.Br are coming. Also MC&T (which we all have to worry about...) We will have: our ambassador Benedicto Fonseca and Everton Paulo Bernardo (Ministry of Communications) Virgilio Almeida (Secretary for ICTs, Ministry of Communication) a representative from ANATEL a representative from our Ministry of Defense (!) A big group of counselors from CGI.Br, thankfully, including CA, Percival Henriques, Demi and others and civil society: Joana - CTS/FGV Joao Caribe Jorge Machado - GPOPAI/USP and OKF-Br Carol (me) - New America and board of OKF-Br etc Carol On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > Thanks Caro for the info. > > Query: Is Everton the higher rank governmental official attending on > behalf of Brazil, or Brazil is planning to send a bigger delegation? > > Thanks > > Eduardo > > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I just want to take the opportunity share with you >> >> http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/internet_and_statecraft_brazil_and_the_future_of_internet_governance-93553 >> >> And let you know that Everton Lucero ( >> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/everton-lucero/0/448/920) will be here >> representing Brazil at IGF and (Brazilians hope) moving forward :-) >> >> C >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Perhaps of interest >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From: *William Drake >>> *Subject: **Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & >>> Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014* >>> *Date: *October 19, 2013 9:36:14 AM GMT+08:00 >>> *To: *Milton L Mueller >>> *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>> >>> Hi Milton >>> >>> On Oct 19, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the >>> more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to >>> develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler >>> problem (ICANN) >>> >>> >>> There's two problems with this. First, Dilma wants to talk about a >>> broader agenda, and many other governments have said the same for years in >>> different ways. Second, Fadi and the coalition he's coordinating with >>> wants to talk about a broader agenda. Both sides have made that clear >>> recently, and are unlikely to be persuaded to the contrary ex ante by blogs >>> etc. Maybe if efforts to discuss the broader issues——the holes in the gov >>> architecture that CS has been noting since 2003—hit a road block they'll >>> collapse back to something narrowly focused on ICANN, but I wouldn't >>> presume it a this point. >>> >>> We're all in blue skies guessing land as to where this will go, and >>> absent clear info a number of folks have been projecting their preferred >>> narratives onto the space. So I will too. I start from the assumption we >>> should listen to what the powers that be have been saying for quite some >>> time. And what I've heard for quite some time now, is >>> >>> 1. A change in the AoC that removes or alters the USG roles to be at >>> best a 'first among equals' in some sense, with greater encouragement to >>> the GAC to step up. This has been US policy, so its adoption is not quite >>> "the world turns its back on USG" and so. Question of timing and >>> dynamics—Snowden revelations obviously accelerated things in a wild card >>> way that was not envisioned or desired. >>> >>> 2. A parallel change to the USG role in the IANA contract cutting ICANN >>> looser and spinning toward GAC oversight. >>> >>> 3. Consideration of some sort of new multistakeholder process for >>> orphaned issues etc. This could prove the hardest, as one assumes G77 and >>> China will still want a UN basis, which wouldn't be congenial to I-orgs et >>> al. >>> >>> The first two pieces are easy enough to imagine, although they will be >>> difficult for the USG to sell domestically. Obama hardly needs the Tea >>> Party and libertarian/conservative think tanks running around >>> hyperventilating about him being the "man who gave away the Internet" at >>> this moment, especially before the mid-term elections. And there'd have to >>> be a lot of hand holding viz. Versign and other contracted parties, major >>> corporate users, US agencies, and nervous allies, to assure them nothing's >>> seriously changed re: stability and security. >>> >>> The third one's anyone's guess. No new IGOs has been the mantra. CSTD >>> is obviously too feeble to be of any use. So something else that can pass >>> muster with governments—? And obviously, there can't be ICANN mission >>> creep here, although there will probably be Fadi creep…ICANN will have to >>> be a supportive partner in some manner. I'd have preferred appending a >>> working group mechanism to the IGF to strengthen its' role, but a lot of >>> people remain fixed on preserving its pristine status as a dialogue space >>> full stop given the no-membership problem etc. >>> >>> There's also talk, e.g. Dilma, about some new multilateral overlay on >>> certain issues. That too would run into standard UN divisions unless it's >>> a pretty generic statement of principles. This could make Wolfgang's Focus >>> Session on Principles, as well as the first FC led by Brazil, particularly >>> interesting. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Oct 18 22:50:30 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 05:50:30 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Cheha, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Oct 19, 2013, at 2:00 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > 1. when we designed it, "We"? > the root was not to be managed that way. When Postel and Mokapetris used it to specify and design the DNS they known that its was an heterarchy inherited from the real world (the then existing data neworks and monopolies) and not a hierarchy as was their local initial NIC. Actually, exactly the opposite. From the introduction of RFC 819: "The intent is that the Internet names be used to form a tree-structured administrative dependent, rather than a strictly topology dependent, hierarchy." Until that time, Internet names were indeed dependent upon "the then existing data networks" ("strictly topology dependent" hierarchy). What became the DNS broke from that approach to create a "tree-structure administrative dependent" with a "universal reference point" (described in section 3 of RFC 819). > This why they designed the DNS to support 35,635 roots. Err, what? The DNS "supports" an infinite number of roots (and, in fact, anyone who implements "split DNS" implements their own root), however people have found that having a single consistent namespace is the most useful for interoperability across administrative domains. No idea where you came up with 35,635. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Oct 19 12:22:24 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 01:22:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 In-Reply-To: <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <0FECEBD0-BE2E-41AF-8156-983EFB65ED13@istaff.org> On Oct 19, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > This statement still concentrates on ICANN-like functions: DNS and IP address > assignment, no matter the desire for a platform to discuss 'orphan issues". > > Those (ICANN like functions) are the life blood of this form of > "Internet governance," but they're trivia to the users of the world, > who want substantive rights that no non-governmental organization with > headquarters in Los Angeles and two other places can > provide or is this the usual problem of existing organizations taking themselves or their relevance > seriously and not taking the people who make and use the Net---not > the people who run the routers and those who like to believe > they regulate those who run the routers---seriously at all? The "globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing" is indeed a relatively small task, and as long as it is being performed appropriately is a topic that should have little interest to the average Internet user, and only slightly more interest to the industry and government that has interest in same. You might compare it to the small tasks of coordinating Internet protocol port numbers or coordinating earth satellite orbits (I have to make both comparisons so that no one takes offense... ;-) Even when done perfectly, they don't improve the state of the Internet; there are still be governments engaged in surveillance, criminal activity rampant, and industry players making use of personal data in surprising ways with nominal user knowledge & consent. The fact that globalizing the ICANN/IANA functions is a relatively small task doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile; it just means that we've got a very long road ahead to get the Internet to where it really should be as a tool for mankind. I will note that the Internet itself started out with very modest capabilities in communications, but that early success led to the amazing functionality of today; in a similar way, it is possible that some success in globalizing this ICANN/IANA foundational piece may prove important in a small way when dealing with the bigger questions that you noted in your email. I'm going to respond separately regarding those questions, because you note some real challenges that deserve their own consideration. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Lao-tzu -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 19 13:10:47 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 01:10:47 +0800 Subject: [governance] Notice of Arrival Message-ID: <67981C30-C980-4A81-AB20-BBE97230FFDE@gmail.com> Dear All, I have arrived into Bali and did'nt have to wait in line for my visa on arrival which was 25USD. My cell in Bali is 0821 4707 2968. Warm Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Oct 19 15:14:05 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:14:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Fadi?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Chehad=E9=3A_Affirmation_of_Commitments_needs_to_become_c?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ontract_between_=27ICANN_and_you=27?= In-Reply-To: <526009FF.7070400@itforchange.net> References: ,<526009FF.7070400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251DA08@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> The idea that the Affirmation of Commitments should be a contract between ICANN and the people raises very interesting questions. As some have suggested, this could just be rhetorical blather: another way in which ICANN tells us that we can use our voices and express ourselves, but which gives people no hard accountability. On the other hand, the idea of a contract between "ICANN and you" could be interpreted as a revival of the notion of _membership_, which was supposed to be the original method of making ICANN democratic and accountable. Members of an organization have specific rights (as well as specific eligibility criteria) and in a California nonprofit the corporate bylaws spelling out those rights/obligations/eligibility could be considered an enforcable contract between the organization and "you." I hope civil society will be savvy enough to revive the notion of membership as an accountability tool, especially when ICANN's own CEO seems to be inviting us to do that. ________________________________ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Internet Policy] Fadi Chehadé: Affirmation of Commitments needs to become contract between 'ICANN and you' Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:16:00 +0530 From: Vinay Kesari To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org Dear all, Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, spoke this evening at the Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013 in New Delhi, and made some very interesting statements, including the following (which I paraphrase): * The Affirmation of Commitments needs to change from being a contract between ICANN and the US Government, to a contract between 'ICANN and you'. * The handling of the IANA function needs to be structured in keeping with the idea that it is the 'root of the world' rather than of any one country. * ICANN headquarters would be split between Los Angeles, Istanbul and Singapore, and hiring in Los Angeles is to be frozen. I will post links to the video from the event as soon as it is up, as well as a more detailed report on his other remarks, including on Brazil, the role of industry, and multilateralism. Regards, Vinay Kesari https://twitter.com/vinaykesari -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Oct 19 18:12:00 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 03:12:00 +0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Fadi_Cheh?= =?UTF-8?Q?ad=C3=A9=3A_Affirmation_of_Commitments_needs_to_become_contract?= =?UTF-8?Q?_between_=27ICANN_and_you=27?= In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251DA08@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <526009FF.7070400@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251DA08@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <9F7952D9-6584-410B-BFB9-AD24FF0CEE90@gmail.com> Dear Milton, You share a very important pair of perspectives. This dual meaning that arises from ICANN and you raises another issue in light of Fadi's strategy panels idea that these panels become an obstacle between ICANN and it's community. Is this a third perspective in your view that will live or outlive ICANN in parallel to its existing notion of the membership? Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 20, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > The idea that the Affirmation of Commitments should be a contract between ICANN and the people raises very interesting questions. > > As some have suggested, this could just be rhetorical blather: another way in which ICANN tells us that we can use our voices and express ourselves, but which gives people no hard accountability. > > On the other hand, the idea of a contract between "ICANN and you" could be interpreted as a revival of the notion of _membership_, which was supposed to be the original method of making ICANN democratic and accountable. Members of an organization have specific rights (as well as specific eligibility criteria) and in a California nonprofit the corporate bylaws spelling out those rights/obligations/eligibility could be considered an enforcable contract between the organization and "you." > > I hope civil society will be savvy enough to revive the notion of membership as an accountability tool, especially when ICANN's own CEO seems to be inviting us to do that. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Internet Policy] Fadi Chehadé: Affirmation of Commitments needs to become contract between 'ICANN and you' > Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 20:16:00 +0530 > From: Vinay Kesari > To: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org > > Dear all, > > Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, spoke this evening at the Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013 in New Delhi, and made some very interesting statements, including the following (which I paraphrase): > The Affirmation of Commitments needs to change from being a contract between ICANN and the US Government, to a contract between 'ICANN and you'. > The handling of the IANA function needs to be structured in keeping with the idea that it is the 'root of the world' rather than of any one country. > ICANN headquarters would be split between Los Angeles, Istanbul and Singapore, and hiring in Los Angeles is to be frozen. > I will post links to the video from the event as soon as it is up, as well as a more detailed report on his other remarks, including on Brazil, the role of industry, and multilateralism. > > Regards, > > Vinay Kesari > > https://twitter.com/vinaykesari > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Oct 19 18:38:39 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:38:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 (more) In-Reply-To: <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <52619763.9060702@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <6033E176-1361-4D9D-BA7C-576947B88A89@istaff.org> On Oct 19, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (whatever it is, as we are still discussing that) make rules that > subject listeners to the rule of law at home, and prohibit the massive > monitoring of other peoples' societies abroad? > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder (organization/network) impose all ports, > all services neutrality on network operators so corruptly in bed with > governments around the world that no one knows how to tease out all > the criminal connections? > > Question: Can this multi-stakeholder decide whether > "sharing services" are allowed to use monitoring technology that makes > supposedly private sharing the material for "customized advertising" > and "personal endorsement"? Is fairness regulation in the economies > of the world irrelevant to the future of the Net, or are > "multi-stakeholder" organizations going to get more regulatory power > than national governments are presently prepared to exercise on behalf > of their citizens? > > Question: How are these multi-stakeholder organizations planning to > deal with governments that refuse to accept their decisions? Is a > future ICANN going to manufacture its own blue helmets, and send them > into Saudi Arabia or China? Mishi - I acknowledged that a solely multi-stakeholder based approach to several of the above situations will not prove sufficient to address the question, but that is to be expected, as some of the above questions are indeed expressed in terms focused on the role of governments in the determining and enforcing of public policy mandates... However, please recognize that even the presence of a wonderful multi-lateral treaty for addressing such questions over the Internet won't actually mean that you will necessarily have any relief to these problems, as governments have been known to take reservations to protect their own interests (e.g. for "national security or sovereignty reasons") and/or to yield on points that may be less important to their immediate needs (even if important to civil society) in exchange for progress on other unrelated agendas of the day. Additionally, it is worth noting in many countries the role of industry and its ample lobbying efforts in influencing outcomes from such structures. I am not saying that "we should not have governments involved"; to the contrary, I strongly believe there is an entire class of problems that are well beyond the ability of a multi-stakeholder, predominantly self-regulatory approach to meaningfully address. One can look at the lack of existing progress in Internet areas such as rights of privacy, freedom of expression, and access to due process for cybercrime as clear evidence of the limits of today's approach. Governments could help today in addressing these issues within their own scope if there were common agreement on the applicable Internet public policy norms and corresponding globally-interoperable mechanisms and practices. Some strengths of the current multistakeholder approach is that has shown more consistent acceptance of inputs from all parties (including civil society and governments) and while that process may have fallen short of folks aspirations, it also has still managed to keep the Internet coordinated and operating globally, all while maintaining maximal flexibility and openness to innovation. Many of the things that happen today on the Internet that enable all people to have a voice and let them to share their views openly exist only because anyone can innovate and create new ways of using the Internet (without asking first any authority for a license or permission), and we must not lose that openness in this next phase of Internet evolution. So, the questions that I have are a little different - they are whether we can do the following: - Add governments to the discussion of a better Internet, one which meets common public policy norms, without the discussion becoming completely government-led, closed to most of us, "bought" by the few, or fragmented into considering solutions of less than global scope - Work with governments so that they have recognition of the value of their cooperating in a globally connecting well-functional Internet and that the benefit received will likely exceed the value of their other objectives - Get the technical community to recognize that governments working openly with the rest of us can actually be a valuable ally in overall Internet coordination and operation, even to the point of potentially gaining some traction on problems (such as privacy and cybercrime) which have been historically hard to tackle from a predominantly self-regulating model. - Get civil society to continue work with both industry/technical folks (who have always provided civil society a voice, but not always heavily weighed due to voluntary nature of past Internet coordination) and governments (who may have agreed with civil society's public policy concerns, but never had a ready way to engage to get these needs addressed on a global basis.) If the above can be done, then the answer to your each earlier questions is the same answer: "Yes, that situation can be addressed based on norms developed by us all, via mechanisms and practices which are global in scope but implemented locally, and facilitated by governments as needed." Best wishes, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Feel free to use or discard as desired. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 19 20:49:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 06:19:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence In-Reply-To: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all > > Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term > strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its > favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this > strategy > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 > > We need to discuss what this means from the perspective of protecting > ourselves from getting unknowingly corrupted and compromised. This > discussions needs to happen both in regard to international civil > society in IG as a whole and in regard to BestBits in particular. very interesting... These are very significant structural issues of global IG that we cannot avoid confronting directly. How much civil society will really be taken seriously depends on how much moral legitimacy we have, which is one of the chief legitimacies of civil society. And such legitimacy would come from confronting such issues directly, and being rather upfront about it. I think there should be a basic transparency (and accountabiltiy) code of conduct for civil society in IG space, at least that part of civil society that works together in spaces like BestBits and IGC. May be today's BestBits meeting can discuss this in the session on internal BB issues etc. I would greatly prefer if we do so. Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how google was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related civil society discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this german news item, but just in case... If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system of Germany, we can well judge what would it be like iin places with less mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging from Korea to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and Latin America, Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil society groups. parminder > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 19 21:29:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 03:29:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence In-Reply-To: <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> References: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20131020032934.2acfed4a@swan.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term > > strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its > > favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this > > strategy > > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > > http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 > > Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how > google was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related > civil society discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this > german news item, but just in case... This sounds like you may have been looking only at the second of the two links that I posted. :-) Anyway I also have first hand knowledge of what Microsoft and Google are doing in Switzerland (they do it in different areas, Microsoft in regard to software used in the public school/education system), and of how way too many people are naïvely going along with it. Very much banana republic like. > If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system > of Germany, we can well judge what would it be like in places with > less mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging > from Korea to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and > Latin America, Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil > society groups. While I do not have any significant first hand knowledge in regard to those parts of the world, what you're writing here sounds extremely plausible -- and scary!!! Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 19 22:13:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 04:13:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: [perpass] Some personal thoughts on the impact of pervasive monitoring Message-ID: <20131020041344.48be111e@swan.bollow.ch> Here is another IMO very important draft. It's short and well worth reading regardless of whether your personal professional background is from the technical side or not. Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 18:21:31 -0700 Von: Ted Hardie An: perpass at ietf.org Betreff: [perpass] Some personal thoughts on the impact of pervasive monitoring Like most folks involved in this list, I have a personal response to the current situation and some thoughts on how it will impact my or our work in the future. Since I expect we will pretty short of mic time in Vancouver for thoughts like these, I decided to write them out. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardie-perpass-touchstone-00 is the result. It's quite short but a quick summary is this: Pervasive monitoring induces self-censoring which harms the Internet and its users. At the scale of the modern Internet, that means it harms humanity. We can and should change our approach to Internet engineering and system design to deal with this. There will be costs for that, but we should pay them. It helps me, personally, to focus on a single user when asking whether a system or protocol is appropriate in the current environment. The draft lays out why. regards, Ted Hardie -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Oct 19 23:00:11 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 04:00:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence In-Reply-To: <20131020032934.2acfed4a@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> <20131020032934.2acfed4a@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Oct 20, 2013 9:30 AM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > > Parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term > > > strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its > > > favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this > > > strategy > > > > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > > > > http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 > > > > Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how > > google was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related > > civil society discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... > > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > > Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this > > german news item, but just in case... > > This sounds like you may have been looking only at the second of the > two links that I posted. :-) > > Anyway I also have first hand knowledge of what Microsoft and Google > are doing in Switzerland (they do it in different areas, Microsoft in > regard to software used in the public school/education system), and of > how way too many people are naïvely going along with it. Very much > banana republic like. > > > If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system > > of Germany, we can well judge what would it be like in places with > > less mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging > > from Korea to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and > > Latin America, Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil > > society groups. > > While I do not have any significant first hand knowledge in regard to > those parts of the world, Hence the need for continue dialogue to trap and correct the wrongs. what you're writing here sounds extremely > plausible -- and scary!!! Solving problems created by others, need one to understand the intend and the solutions come in once you can dive into the strategist platform. You can't solve them when you are outside the room of discussions. Thank you. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 19 23:01:59 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 05:01:59 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence References: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> What is needed here - and we discussed already in WSIS I and WSIS II nrearl ten years agi - are something like procedures for the relationship beteen stakeholders within a MS mechanism. From a CS point of view we should develop some guideliens and criteria under which we would collaborate with governments, private sector and the technical community. With all stakehholder grups CS has sometimes something in common but has also conflicts. This does not exclude collabboration - where it meets the standards, values and interests of CS - but it needs also clear positions where such a collaboration is a controversy. To strengthen our own profile, to clear what our inteerests and positions are enables us best to define where we can cooperate and where not. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: So 20.10.2013 02:49 An: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all > > Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term > strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its > favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this > strategy > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 > > We need to discuss what this means from the perspective of protecting > ourselves from getting unknowingly corrupted and compromised. This > discussions needs to happen both in regard to international civil > society in IG as a whole and in regard to BestBits in particular. very interesting... These are very significant structural issues of global IG that we cannot avoid confronting directly. How much civil society will really be taken seriously depends on how much moral legitimacy we have, which is one of the chief legitimacies of civil society. And such legitimacy would come from confronting such issues directly, and being rather upfront about it. I think there should be a basic transparency (and accountabiltiy) code of conduct for civil society in IG space, at least that part of civil society that works together in spaces like BestBits and IGC. May be today's BestBits meeting can discuss this in the session on internal BB issues etc. I would greatly prefer if we do so. Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how google was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related civil society discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this german news item, but just in case... If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system of Germany, we can well judge what would it be like iin places with less mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging from Korea to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and Latin America, Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil society groups. parminder > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Oct 19 23:10:43 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 04:10:43 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: This is a great point from Wolfgang. Solving problems with Knowledge and understanding. Best. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Oct 20, 2013 11:02 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > What is needed here - and we discussed already in WSIS I and WSIS II > nrearl ten years agi - are something like procedures for the relationship > beteen stakeholders within a MS mechanism. From a CS point of view we > should develop some guideliens and criteria under which we would > collaborate with governments, private sector and the technical community. > With all stakehholder grups CS has sometimes something in common but has > also conflicts. This does not exclude collabboration - where it meets the > standards, values and interests of CS - but it needs also clear positions > where such a collaboration is a controversy. To strengthen our own profile, > to clear what our inteerests and positions are enables us best to define > where we can cooperate and where not. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: So 20.10.2013 02:49 > An: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence > > > > On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Dear all > > > > Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term > > strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its > > favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this > > strategy > > > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > > http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 > > > > We need to discuss what this means from the perspective of protecting > > ourselves from getting unknowingly corrupted and compromised. This > > discussions needs to happen both in regard to international civil > > society in IG as a whole and in regard to BestBits in particular. > > very interesting... These are very significant structural issues of > global IG that we cannot avoid confronting directly. How much civil > society will really be taken seriously depends on how much moral > legitimacy we have, which is one of the chief legitimacies of civil > society. And such legitimacy would come from confronting such issues > directly, and being rather upfront about it. I think there should be a > basic transparency (and accountabiltiy) code of conduct for civil > society in IG space, at least that part of civil society that works > together in spaces like BestBits and IGC. May be today's BestBits > meeting can discuss this in the session on internal BB issues etc. I > would greatly prefer if we do so. > > > Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how google > was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related civil society > discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this > german news item, but just in case... > > > If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system of > Germany, we can well judge what would it be like iin places with less > mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging from Korea > to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and Latin America, > Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil society groups. > > > parminder > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Oct 20 03:07:00 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:07:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BInternet_Policy=5D_Fadi_Cheh?= =?UTF-8?Q?ad=C3=A9=3A_Affirmation_of_Commitments_needs_to_become_contract?= =?UTF-8?Q?_between_=27ICANN_and_you=27?= In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251DA08@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <526009FF.7070400@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251DA08@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20131020090700.1dcb2e37@swan.bollow.ch> Milton L Mueller wrote: > The idea that the Affirmation of Commitments should be a contract > between ICANN and the people raises very interesting questions. [..] > I hope civil society will be savvy enough to revive the notion of > membership as an accountability tool, especially when ICANN's own CEO > seems to be inviting us to do that. Sounds like a great idea to me! Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 03:13:34 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:13:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Completely agree with Wolfgang here, and this is in line with what I said some time ago about CS needing to develop its frameworks or positions on a number of fundamental issues, as opposed to being just reactive mostly. So far our positive existence has mainly been in the fact of having a charter (IGC) and yes, submitting statements or slates of nominees when the opportunity arises (the latter being ambiguously both a positive to some extent and a negative/reactive forms of existence.) Now maybe the time for maturity has come for us "To strengthen our own profile, to clear what our interests and positions are." CS is not just an anti-government thing; it is CS. And it is so vis-a-vis all other stakeholders. So, yes to the idea of developing some principles, guidelines or procedures for collaboration with any other stakeholder, particularly but not only business (as we at least already have a long tradition in dealing with governments in the open.) mawaki ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mawaki Chango, PhD DIGILEXIS Consulting, Founder and CEO ICT Policy & Regulations | KM & Organizational Processes | ICT4D | Digital Records & Identity www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com @digilexis @mawakiDIGILEXIS +225 4448 7764 On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 3:01 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > What is needed here - and we discussed already in WSIS I and WSIS II > nrearl ten years agi - are something like procedures for the relationship > beteen stakeholders within a MS mechanism. From a CS point of view we > should develop some guideliens and criteria under which we would > collaborate with governments, private sector and the technical community. > With all stakehholder grups CS has sometimes something in common but has > also conflicts. This does not exclude collabboration - where it meets the > standards, values and interests of CS - but it needs also clear positions > where such a collaboration is a controversy. To strengthen our own profile, > to clear what our inteerests and positions are enables us best to define > where we can cooperate and where not. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: So 20.10.2013 02:49 > An: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence > > > > On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Dear all > > > > Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term > > strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its > > favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this > > strategy > > > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > > http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 > > > > We need to discuss what this means from the perspective of protecting > > ourselves from getting unknowingly corrupted and compromised. This > > discussions needs to happen both in regard to international civil > > society in IG as a whole and in regard to BestBits in particular. > > very interesting... These are very significant structural issues of > global IG that we cannot avoid confronting directly. How much civil > society will really be taken seriously depends on how much moral > legitimacy we have, which is one of the chief legitimacies of civil > society. And such legitimacy would come from confronting such issues > directly, and being rather upfront about it. I think there should be a > basic transparency (and accountabiltiy) code of conduct for civil > society in IG space, at least that part of civil society that works > together in spaces like BestBits and IGC. May be today's BestBits > meeting can discuss this in the session on internal BB issues etc. I > would greatly prefer if we do so. > > > Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how google > was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related civil society > discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this > german news item, but just in case... > > > If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system of > Germany, we can well judge what would it be like iin places with less > mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging from Korea > to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and Latin America, > Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil society groups. > > > parminder > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 10:05:28 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:05:28 +1100 Subject: [governance] DC Expression relaunch tomorrow! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet will have its relaunch tomorrow at 1600 in Room #5 Uluwatu 5. We will have presentations from: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO on UNESCO's work in promoting online freedom; Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners Digital on challenges and opportunities for the democratisation of free expression brought about by the internet and an assessment of the current climate; Sarah Clarke, PEN International on the impact of global surveillance on writers & journalists. There will then be a general discussion around these issues and of future steps for the relaunched coalition. The event will be live tweeted via the hash tag #DCexp2013 - we also now have a twitter account: @DC_expression. Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow. Angela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Oct 18 16:15:57 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:15:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Message-ID: I agree the agenda may be quite ambitious. But I think BR is aiming high. --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller Date: 18-10-2013 14:09 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,parminder ,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Ian Peter ,Brenden Kuerbis ,NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 On Thursday 17 October 2013 05:49 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, this will not be true at all. The main topic of the meeting will > probably be something like the forms and ways to achieve > pluriparticipative international Internet governance, including, as the > Presidenta said, "an international framework of civil rights for the > Internet". > > The "phone list" of the Internet is just a relatively small part of this > huge challenge. If the Icann people think otherwise, they will be in for > a surprise very soon. :) Yes, Carlos, but....if the community cannot come together on agreed mechanisms and institutions for global governance of the so-called "phone list" (really bad metaphor, by the way) how is it able to take on larger problems? In other words, if we can't do ICANN right, why should anyone think we can do anything else? I have always viewed ICANN as a test case of our capabilities for global governance, not as intrinsically interesting in itself. Therefore, I do not agree with more ambitious agendas - or at least, the more ambitious issues might be discussed, but only if we are able to develop and apply a workable solution to the more immediate and simpler problem (ICANN). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Oct 20 12:40:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 22:10:28 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5264077C.8080906@itforchange.net> Wolfgang The least that all civil society groups, especially since in a MS settings they claim a special political role, can do is to be transparent - whatever further 'clear positions' as you suggest might be developed. A clear statement of objectives, interest and activities, and funding transparency is the basic minimum. CS can hardly be legitimate in calling for transparency and accountability of other actors if it cannot itself be so. In fact it has to uphold much higher standards. Unfortunately, we dont see any such self reflection in the civil society. Norbert raised this point repeatedly in the BestBits meeting today. parminder On Sunday 20 October 2013 08:31 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > What is needed here - and we discussed already in WSIS I and WSIS II nrearl ten years agi - are something like procedures for the relationship beteen stakeholders within a MS mechanism. From a CS point of view we should develop some guideliens and criteria under which we would collaborate with governments, private sector and the technical community. With all stakehholder grups CS has sometimes something in common but has also conflicts. This does not exclude collabboration - where it meets the standards, values and interests of CS - but it needs also clear positions where such a collaboration is a controversy. To strengthen our own profile, to clear what our inteerests and positions are enables us best to define where we can cooperate and where not. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: So 20.10.2013 02:49 > An: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence > > > > On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Dear all >> >> Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term >> strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its >> favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this >> strategy >> >> http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html >> >> http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 >> >> We need to discuss what this means from the perspective of protecting >> ourselves from getting unknowingly corrupted and compromised. This >> discussions needs to happen both in regard to international civil >> society in IG as a whole and in regard to BestBits in particular. > very interesting... These are very significant structural issues of > global IG that we cannot avoid confronting directly. How much civil > society will really be taken seriously depends on how much moral > legitimacy we have, which is one of the chief legitimacies of civil > society. And such legitimacy would come from confronting such issues > directly, and being rather upfront about it. I think there should be a > basic transparency (and accountabiltiy) code of conduct for civil > society in IG space, at least that part of civil society that works > together in spaces like BestBits and IGC. May be today's BestBits > meeting can discuss this in the session on internal BB issues etc. I > would greatly prefer if we do so. > > > Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how google > was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related civil society > discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this > german news item, but just in case... > > > If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system of > Germany, we can well judge what would it be like iin places with less > mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging from Korea > to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and Latin America, > Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil society groups. > > > parminder >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 13:12:17 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:12:17 +0800 Subject: [governance] Pre-Internet Governance Update Message-ID: Dear All, The Pre- Internet Governance Forum starts tomorrow. Remote participation is available over IPv6! :) To see the schedule for tomorrow's pre-IGF kindly visit: http://igf2013.or.id/preevent/ Snippets from Today *Civil Society* I had wanted to attend the Best Bits meeting but could not find the hotel in which they were having the meeting and fatigue had set in from arriving a little past midnight. Norbert Bollow attended this meeting whilst I attended the ISOC sessions. Norbert will be attending the High Level Leaders meeting as an Observer and representing the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Various civil society organisations also held their meetings. The IGC will host its meeting on Tuesday lunch time. Giganet starts tomorrow and promises to be exciting and for the full day. *Internet Society* Today, I attended a Workshop organised by the Chapters Division of ISOC for ISOC chapters which created the opportunity to meet other ISOC Chapter members and discuss various challenges, strengths and opportunities for growth and expansion for chapters. There was also substantial dialogue in terms of how Chapters can contribute to the dialogue on Internet Governance through meaningful participation and being relevant within their own local communities through engaging in strategic engagement on various levels - national, regional and global. There was also discussion on collaboration, enhanced cooperation and meaningful participation. The dialogue is expected to feed into the ISOC organised workshop during the IGF. |This was followed by drinks and dinner for attendees. *ICC Basis* ICC Basis also organised sessions for their constituents which is mainly private sector. *Government* The High Level Leaders meeting will start tomorrow and this is mainly for Government representatives, select Invitees and a handful of observers. Norbert Bollow will be officially attending as an Observer. * * *General Observations and Thoughts* Excitement is building up in Bali as civil society, private sector and public sector prepare to engage in the IGF which starts on Tuesday after tomorrow's Pre-IGF session. There was a call for policy questions to be addressed in this year's IGF. To see a condensed list of the policy questions that will be raised in the Workshops and various thematic sessions, visit: http://intgovforum.org/cms/Policy%20Questions%20to%20be%20addressed%20by%20the%202013%20IGF.pdf Today and tomorrow will be more or less utilized by stakeholders for preparing for engagement in the discussions in this year's IGF. This time last year, stakeholders were apprehensive about the WCIT discussions and outcomes. This year, there is a different type of excitement and nervousness as stakeholders discuss diverse aspects of enhanced cooperation in the face of an ongoing debate on multilateralism v multistakeholderism and philosphical confrontation in the wake of increasing calls for autonomy. This promises to be a very interesting IGF and whilst decisions are not made in IGFs, it acts as a social, economic, political barometer that stakeholders use to chart their strategies and effective participation within the IGF and other foras. For those who are not physically in Bali, remote participation is equal to participating onsite and your views will be heard if you raise them and they become part of the Transcripts as is the norm. It is even more important that you participate and air your views during the workshop and even as you tweet in real time, you are also enabling a much more broader discussion on the issues that have yet to unfold. *Social Media* The twitter #IGF2013 is being used. For those who are not used to tropical climate, it is advisable to increase your water intake to avoid dehydration. Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sun Oct 20 18:16:25 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 03:46:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) In-Reply-To: References: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I also already have another meeting at the same time and so despite having expressed enthusiasm for the idea, I'll have to miss this. Apologies and all the best, Anja On Oct 19, 2013 10:00 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi > > FWIW the MAG has a meeting then with Asst. SG Gass, so you'll be minus a > few people. > > Best, > > Bill > > On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Dear all > > > > After communication by email with the IGF secretariat proved to be > > difficult, Sala and I decided that I'd chase them up in person... > > this is worked out, and we now have the following room booked for > > the IGC meeting for the “lunch break” slot on day 1 of the IGF (Tuesday > > Oct 22)... > > > > Kintamani 8 > > > > I will post a formal announcement with a draft agenda on the day > > before. > > > > Further suggestions and thoughts in regard to the agenda are still > > welcome, preferably by noon Oct 21 Bali time. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 19:25:31 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 00:25:31 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence In-Reply-To: <5264077C.8080906@itforchange.net> References: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5264077C.8080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I strongly support Parminder's points of total Transparency and Accountability of Civil Society because this is what they stand for. My 1cent. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Oct 21, 2013 12:41 AM, "parminder" wrote: > Wolfgang > > The least that all civil society groups, especially since in a MS settings > they claim a special political role, can do is to be transparent - whatever > further 'clear positions' as you suggest might be developed. A clear > statement of objectives, interest and activities, and funding transparency > is the basic minimum. CS can hardly be legitimate in calling for > transparency and accountability of other actors if it cannot itself be so. > In fact it has to uphold much higher standards. Unfortunately, we dont see > any such self reflection in the civil society. Norbert raised this point > repeatedly in the BestBits meeting today. > > parminder > > > On Sunday 20 October 2013 08:31 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > What is needed here - and we discussed already in WSIS I and WSIS II nrearl ten years agi - are something like procedures for the relationship beteen stakeholders within a MS mechanism. From a CS point of view we should develop some guideliens and criteria under which we would collaborate with governments, private sector and the technical community. With all stakehholder grups CS has sometimes something in common but has also conflicts. This does not exclude collabboration - where it meets the standards, values and interests of CS - but it needs also clear positions where such a collaboration is a controversy. To strengthen our own profile, to clear what our inteerests and positions are enables us best to define where we can cooperate and where not. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: So 20.10.2013 02:49 > An: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence > > > > On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Dear all > > Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term > strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its > favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this > strategy > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 > > We need to discuss what this means from the perspective of protecting > ourselves from getting unknowingly corrupted and compromised. This > discussions needs to happen both in regard to international civil > society in IG as a whole and in regard to BestBits in particular. > > > very interesting... These are very significant structural issues of > global IG that we cannot avoid confronting directly. How much civil > society will really be taken seriously depends on how much moral > legitimacy we have, which is one of the chief legitimacies of civil > society. And such legitimacy would come from confronting such issues > directly, and being rather upfront about it. I think there should be a > basic transparency (and accountabiltiy) code of conduct for civil > society in IG space, at least that part of civil society that works > together in spaces like BestBits and IGC. May be today's BestBits > meeting can discuss this in the session on internal BB issues etc. I > would greatly prefer if we do so. > > > Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how google > was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related civil society > discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this > german news item, but just in case... > > > If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system of > Germany, we can well judge what would it be like iin places with less > mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging from Korea > to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and Latin America, > Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil society groups. > > > parminder > > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 19:59:44 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:59:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] Breakfast Chat Message-ID: Dear All, It is a beautiful morning in Bali. Today is Day 0 of the IGF and is pre-IGF. Some thoughts this morning. There are themes which have been the subject of much discussion over the past seven IGFs such as Human Rights, Enhanced Cooperation. In the face of complex governance debates on technical, social, economic, political, legal facets, the development of principles regulating the Internet is critical to form a starting point for discussion. I would encourage you to be brief in your responses to allow for ease of consolidation of the viewpoints. *A. ** Human Rights* * * * * Support for the 10 Internet Rights Principles produced by the Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition which includes: *1. **Right to Access to the Internet* *2. **Right to Non- Discrimination to Internet Access, Use and Governance * *3. **Right to Liberty and Security on the Internet* *4. **Right to Development through the Internet* *5. **Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet* *6. **Freedom of Religion and Belief on the Internet* *7. **Freedom of Online Assembly and Association* *8. **Right to Privacy on the Internet* *9. **Right to Digital Data Protection* *10. **Right to Education On or About the Internet* *11. **Rights of Children On the Internet* *12. **Rights of People with Disabilities and the Internet* *13. **Right to Work and the Internet* *14. **Rights to Online Participation in Public Affairs* *15. **Rights to Consumer Protection on the Internet* *16. **Rights to Health and Social Services on the Internet* *17. **Right to Legal Remedy and Fair Trial for Actions Involving the Internet* *18. **Right to Appropriate Social and International Order for the Internet* *19. **Duties and Responsibilities of the Internet* *20. **General Clauses* *To access the PDF, visit: * http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf ** *Whilst there are a significant number of people in the IGC who were involved in the development of these principles in other hats, it is worthwhile asking whether there is unanimous support within the IGC for these principles or whether there are reservations for some of the principles. * * * *There is also a written piece which will be released at the conclusion of the IGF on Online Freedom of Expression – contact *angelacdaly at gmail.com** * * *Sticky Issues*** * * *We invite you to share what you perceive to be sticky issues as far as Human Rights are on the Internet. * *(Please be succinct and use 20 words to summarize one issue) To kick start this, here are few examples:* * * *1) **Conflict of Rights –key considerations and responsibilities should be underpinned by global public interest* *2) **Abuse of Exceptions to Article 19 of the ICCPR – states and commercial stakeholders should not abuse the exceptions * *3) **Etc [Add your take on what you think are sticky issues]* *Things to Watch out for Today* · *Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet will be meeting at the 2013 Internet Governance Forum on Monday 21 October (Day 0 of the proceedings) from 1600 to 1800 in roomUluwatu 5 at the Bali Nusa Dua Convention Center. *** · *You can also follow the twitter feeds via *@DC_FoE #FoE ** *B. **High Level Government Meeting* Norbert Bollow will be attending this meeting as an Observer. I will try to access this meeting through my involvement in Fiji’s Cyber Security Working Group as the Chair of the Legal Sub-Committee. One of the Indonesian Government suggested that I attend and I might “sneak” in. My participation is as civil society involved in advising government so does not worry – I am still very much civil society if I am able to attend for my country, I will definitely keep track of the discussions and report back. *C. **GigaNET* The GigaNET promises to be exciting as leading academics, researchers who are on the cutting edge of their expert area share insight into the development. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Oct 20 21:04:58 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 03:04:58 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence References: <20131020021029.414885d7@swan.bollow.ch> <52632892.7040300@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320FF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5264077C.8080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332104@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> No disagreement, transparency is a key and we - as CS - has to be a model for it. I think the IGC - with all its problems - is a good example. It is very open and transparent. But more can be done. w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: So 20.10.2013 18:40 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence Wolfgang The least that all civil society groups, especially since in a MS settings they claim a special political role, can do is to be transparent - whatever further 'clear positions' as you suggest might be developed. A clear statement of objectives, interest and activities, and funding transparency is the basic minimum. CS can hardly be legitimate in calling for transparency and accountability of other actors if it cannot itself be so. In fact it has to uphold much higher standards. Unfortunately, we dont see any such self reflection in the civil society. Norbert raised this point repeatedly in the BestBits meeting today. parminder On Sunday 20 October 2013 08:31 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > What is needed here - and we discussed already in WSIS I and WSIS II nrearl ten years agi - are something like procedures for the relationship beteen stakeholders within a MS mechanism. From a CS point of view we should develop some guideliens and criteria under which we would collaborate with governments, private sector and the technical community. With all stakehholder grups CS has sometimes something in common but has also conflicts. This does not exclude collabboration - where it meets the standards, values and interests of CS - but it needs also clear positions where such a collaboration is a controversy. To strengthen our own profile, to clear what our inteerests and positions are enables us best to define where we can cooperate and where not. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: So 20.10.2013 02:49 > An: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Google's growing web of influence > > > > On Sunday 20 October 2013 05:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Dear all >> >> Google is definitely working with determination and a long-term >> strategy to shape the public discourse as much as possible in its >> favor, and its civil society funding activities are part of this >> strategy >> >> http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html >> >> http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288214 >> >> We need to discuss what this means from the perspective of protecting >> ourselves from getting unknowingly corrupted and compromised. This >> discussions needs to happen both in regard to international civil >> society in IG as a whole and in regard to BestBits in particular. > very interesting... These are very significant structural issues of > global IG that we cannot avoid confronting directly. How much civil > society will really be taken seriously depends on how much moral > legitimacy we have, which is one of the chief legitimacies of civil > society. And such legitimacy would come from confronting such issues > directly, and being rather upfront about it. I think there should be a > basic transparency (and accountabiltiy) code of conduct for civil > society in IG space, at least that part of civil society that works > together in spaces like BestBits and IGC. May be today's BestBits > meeting can discuss this in the session on internal BB issues etc. I > would greatly prefer if we do so. > > > Around the same time last year a similar analysis came out of how google > was trying to (rather effectively) capture the IG related civil society > discursive and advocacy space in Germany ... > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/how-google-lobbies-german-government-over-internet-regulation-a-857654.html > > > Your choice of the email subject line suggests that you know of this > german news item, but just in case... > > > If google can do such a thing in a rather mature institutional system of > Germany, we can well judge what would it be like iin places with less > mature social institutions.. I know that in countries ranging from Korea > to many countries in Africa, also of course in Asia and Latin America, > Google is aggressively throwing in funds for IG civil society groups. > > > parminder >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 21:10:14 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:10:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Breakfast Chat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > It is a beautiful morning in Bali. Today is Day 0 of the IGF and is pre-IGF. > Some thoughts this morning. > > > > There are themes which have been the subject of much discussion over the > past seven IGFs such as Human Rights, Enhanced Cooperation. In the face of > complex governance debates on technical, social, economic, political, legal > facets, the development of principles regulating the Internet is critical to > form a starting point for discussion. > > > > I would encourage you to be brief in your responses to allow for ease of > consolidation of the viewpoints. > > > > A. Human Rights > > > > > > Support for the 10 Internet Rights Principles produced by the Internet > Principles and Dynamic Coalition which includes: > > > > 1. Right to Access to the Internet > > 2. Right to Non- Discrimination to Internet Access, Use and Governance > > 3. Right to Liberty and Security on the Internet > > 4. Right to Development through the Internet > > 5. Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet > > 6. Freedom of Religion and Belief on the Internet > > 7. Freedom of Online Assembly and Association > > 8. Right to Privacy on the Internet > > 9. Right to Digital Data Protection > > 10. Right to Education On or About the Internet > > 11. Rights of Children On the Internet > > 12. Rights of People with Disabilities and the Internet > > 13. Right to Work and the Internet > > 14. Rights to Online Participation in Public Affairs > > 15. Rights to Consumer Protection on the Internet > > 16. Rights to Health and Social Services on the Internet > > 17. Right to Legal Remedy and Fair Trial for Actions Involving the Internet > > 18. Right to Appropriate Social and International Order for the Internet > > 19. Duties and Responsibilities of the Internet > > 20. General Clauses > > To access the PDF, visit: > http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf > > Whilst there are a significant number of people in the IGC who were involved > in the development of these principles in other hats, it is worthwhile > asking whether there is unanimous support within the IGC for these > principles or whether there are reservations for some of the principles. I have reservations about 13, 16, 18 and I object strongly to #20. What "Duties and Responsibilities" could a non-human/non-organisation have? Does anybody have a link to the HLM webcast? Is there one? -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Oct 20 21:27:18 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:27:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] Breakfast Chat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42F52DC7-AB92-42E9-B512-8026F0DBFD53@gmail.com> > > I have reservations about 13, 16, 18 and I object strongly to #20. [ST] Noted McTim > > What "Duties and Responsibilities" could a non-human/non-organisation have? > > Does anybody have a link to the HLM webcast? Is there one? Don't have it, will find out. > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 21 00:22:32 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear all I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during the opening ceremony.  In order to be representative enough, I would like to ask everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST mention. Of course, I will not forget: 1. The centrality of human rights 2. Multistakeholder participation o 3. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation 4. Not losing the "development focus" of IG 5. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability 6. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG processes at national levels 7. Brazil 2014? 8. Surveillance? 9. Best Bits? All for now Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 21 00:27:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:27:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS speakers Message-ID: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> A quick request for CS MAG members: Could you please arrange for some transparency in regard to what is going on in regard to selection of CS speakers for IGF opening and closing? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 00:52:46 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:52:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Please remember the end users - the "people in the street" - who may not have much idea about what is going on but who are surely affected by it and who pay for a lot of it. Deirdre On 21 October 2013 05:22, Nnenna wrote: > > Dear all > > I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during the > opening ceremony. In order to be representative enough, I would like to > ask everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST mention. > > Of course, I will not forget: > > 1. The centrality of human rights > 2. Multistakeholder participation o > 3. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation > 4. Not losing the "development focus" of IG > 5. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability > 6. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG > processes at national levels > 7. Brazil 2014? > 8. Surveillance? > 9. Best Bits? > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 21 01:02:52 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:32:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5264B57C.7020908@itforchange.net> On Monday 21 October 2013 09:57 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > A quick request for CS MAG members: Could you please arrange for some > transparency in regard to what is going on in regard to selection of > CS speakers for IGF opening and closing? To add, if they know of anything about how CS invites for today's high level meeting were arranged. My colleague Anita and I wrote to the meeting organisers, as well as CS rep on Bali IGF organising committee and never got any response. And I learn that many people got invites without having applied for (as was asked for by the CS rep on Bali organising committee). I think CS is losing its grip on openness and transparency and CS's self- organised representativity in the processes around the IGF. We are much worse off today on these issues then we were a few years back. If some thing happens with a gov organised event (well, basically only UN related ones since we did not speak out against Northern countries hand picking CS persons for Seoul Cyber Conference either) , we are realy quite vociferous, but if some kind of multistakeholder governance is involved everything seems to be fair game. That I see as one of the greatest dangers of MSism - its refusal to examine itself and be accountable, and if anyone but raises a issue that person is labelled as against MSism . Anyone willing to take this issue up? parminder > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Mon Oct 21 02:13:17 2013 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu ('Yuliya Morenets') Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:13:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Workshop 327_Strategy for developing countries on child online protection_October 22, 09-10h30 Bali time In-Reply-To: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948EA51D8E@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <87a15022d3737d88b0999d2eaa074681ce58e12b@ssl0.ovh.net>  Dear all, We would like to invite all to join us tomorrow, October 22, 09-10h30 Bali time at Room 2, Nusa Dua Hall 1 (remotely or physically) for the workshop on Child online protection where we will discuss the need for the development of the Strategy on child online protection in the developing countries and how to empower the most vulnerable children, as a part of the Strategy.  Key participants from ITU, Internet Watch Foundation, IMPACT, African Child Online protection Summit/Extensia, Microsoft, Sudan and Academia together with participants will discuss the issue. Please join us and bring your expertise and suggestions. Flyer attached. With best regards, Yuliya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF_WS327_COP_flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 275092 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Mon Oct 21 03:04:38 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:04:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: MAG members of the Civil society groups were asked at the last minute too send the names of the candidates for the opening session speaker, and some of us sent some names, and the IGF Secretariat decided. There was no time honestly to consult with say IGC. I was naively expecting that the IGC co-cos were already asked, or, being Prepared, but unfortunately, that seems to be not the case. There should be sufficient time and more transparent process, I agree. izumi 2013/10/21 Norbert Bollow > A quick request for CS MAG members: Could you please arrange for some > transparency in regard to what is going on in regard to selection of > CS speakers for IGF opening and closing? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon Oct 21 03:59:50 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:59:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi, From appearances on the ground, anyone who showed and asked in, got in. I can't speak personally as I had something better to do so did not ask to be allowed in. avri On 21 Oct 2013, at 15:04, Izumi AIZU wrote: > MAG members of the Civil society groups were asked at the last minute too > send the names of the candidates for the opening session speaker, and some > of us sent some names, and the IGF Secretariat decided. > > There was no time honestly to consult with say IGC. > > I was naively expecting that the IGC co-cos were already asked, or, being > Prepared, but unfortunately, that seems to be not the case. > > There should be sufficient time and more transparent process, I agree. > > izumi > > > 2013/10/21 Norbert Bollow > A quick request for CS MAG members: Could you please arrange for some > transparency in regard to what is going on in regard to selection of > CS speakers for IGF opening and closing? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 21 04:11:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:11:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> Izumi AIZU wrote: > MAG members of the Civil society groups were asked at the last minute > too send the names of the candidates for the opening session speaker, > and some of us sent some names, and the IGF Secretariat decided. > > There was no time honestly to consult with say IGC. > > I was naively expecting that the IGC co-cos were already asked, or, > being Prepared We're of course ready to speak on behalf of the IGC when the IGC is offered a speaking slot (as per what the IGC Charter says about this) but we're not impolitely pounding on the doors of the MAG or of the IGF Secretariat to demand speaking slots. > but unfortunately, that seems to be not the case. > > There should be sufficient time and more transparent process, I agree. Has CS been singled out with this kind of treatment, or have all groups of stakeholders including governments been treated with this kind of disorganization on an equal footing? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 04:24:34 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:24:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Infact, of lately things have not being going well on the mailings, Nobert. I feel someone is playing some games, Thereby making Coordination very difficult. Best regards. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Oct 21, 2013 4:12 PM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > MAG members of the Civil society groups were asked at the last minute > > too send the names of the candidates for the opening session speaker, > > and some of us sent some names, and the IGF Secretariat decided. > > > > There was no time honestly to consult with say IGC. > > > > I was naively expecting that the IGC co-cos were already asked, or, > > being Prepared > > We're of course ready to speak on behalf of the IGC when the IGC is > offered a speaking slot (as per what the IGC Charter says about this) but > we're not impolitely pounding on the doors of the MAG or of the IGF > Secretariat to demand speaking slots. > > > but unfortunately, that seems to be not the case. > > > > There should be sufficient time and more transparent process, I agree. > > Has CS been singled out with this kind of treatment, or have all groups > of stakeholders including governments been treated with this kind of > disorganization on an equal footing? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 04:42:35 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:42:35 +0800 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <39398BB6-1553-497D-B4D7-D70FD7022796@gmail.com> Hi Guys, The concerns can be raised and discussed later for now given that it is late in the day, our pressing concern is to rally behind Nnenna who has asked for input in the preparation of the message. "A house divided against itself will not stand" and our more pressing concern is getting a message out. In relation to the lack of consultation that is something that can be addressed later after the IGF. Let's focus on concentrating on supporting Nnenna and it is not her fault. Warm Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Infact, of lately things have not being going well on the mailings, Nobert. I feel someone is playing some games, Thereby making Coordination very difficult. > > Best regards. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > >> On Oct 21, 2013 4:12 PM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: >> Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> > MAG members of the Civil society groups were asked at the last minute >> > too send the names of the candidates for the opening session speaker, >> > and some of us sent some names, and the IGF Secretariat decided. >> > >> > There was no time honestly to consult with say IGC. >> > >> > I was naively expecting that the IGC co-cos were already asked, or, >> > being Prepared >> >> We're of course ready to speak on behalf of the IGC when the IGC is >> offered a speaking slot (as per what the IGC Charter says about this) but >> we're not impolitely pounding on the doors of the MAG or of the IGF >> Secretariat to demand speaking slots. >> >> > but unfortunately, that seems to be not the case. >> > >> > There should be sufficient time and more transparent process, I agree. >> >> Has CS been singled out with this kind of treatment, or have all groups >> of stakeholders including governments been treated with this kind of >> disorganization on an equal footing? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Oct 21 04:46:49 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:46:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4645A3AB-0656-4B21-A316-B433A5608D4D@uzh.ch> Hi Norbert, On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > disorganization on an equal footing Great turn of the phrase—a new definition for multistakeholder processes! :-) Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Mon Oct 21 04:54:35 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:54:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: <4645A3AB-0656-4B21-A316-B433A5608D4D@uzh.ch> References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> <4645A3AB-0656-4B21-A316-B433A5608D4D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: >From my personal observation, other stakeholders also seem to get equally disorganized situation but I do not know that much honestly. izumi 2013/10/21 William Drake > Hi Norbert, > > On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > disorganization on an equal footing > > > Great turn of the phrase—a new definition for multistakeholder processes! > :-) > > Cheers, > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 04:57:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:57:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> <4645A3AB-0656-4B21-A316-B433A5608D4D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <67963FBE-1895-4542-911C-43EF9CECB32B@gmail.com> IG in crisis :( rofl Sent from my iPad > On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > From my personal observation, other stakeholders also seem to get equally disorganized > situation but I do not know that much honestly. > > izumi > > 2013/10/21 William Drake >> Hi Norbert, >> >>> On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> disorganization on an equal footing >> >> Great turn of the phrase—a new definition for multistakeholder processes! :-) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Oct 21 05:03:09 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:03:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: <4645A3AB-0656-4B21-A316-B433A5608D4D@uzh.ch> References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> <4645A3AB-0656-4B21-A316-B433A5608D4D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20131021090307.GB16601@tarvainen.info> On Oct 21 16:46, William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote: > Hi Norbert, > > On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > disorganization on an equal footing > > Great turn of the phrase—a new definition for multistakeholder processes! :-) LOL :-D -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 21 05:14:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 05:14:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> <4645A3AB-0656-4B21-A316-B433A5608D4D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Please apply Hanlon's Razor and don't confuse incompetence with malice --srs (iPad) > On 21-Oct-2013, at 4:54, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > From my personal observation, other stakeholders also seem to get equally disorganized > situation but I do not know that much honestly. > > izumi > > 2013/10/21 William Drake >> Hi Norbert, >> >>> On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> disorganization on an equal footing >> >> Great turn of the phrase—a new definition for multistakeholder processes! :-) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 21 05:18:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:48:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5264F14F.8060306@itforchange.net> Thanks for the information, Izumi... (also for attention of other MAG members) THis issue about civil society participation was extensively discussed on this list, and BestBits, some weeks ago... If I remember right, MAG members were specifically requested to do something and let us know.... So, well, we as civil society persons did all that we could..... Not sure what and how did MAG follow up if they at all did... Good to let us know why no one really took this issue up despite repeated requests from members here.. And a connected issues - can you please tell us how civil society speakers were selected, and what does MAG members know about it.... There was a time when we even used to have a nomcom process for civil society rep selection, at other times there were less formal but still some kind of inclusive processes.... It is very disturbing what have things come to now... No one even knows what is happening. . parminder On Monday 21 October 2013 12:34 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > MAG members of the Civil society groups were asked at the last minute too > send the names of the candidates for the opening session speaker, and some > of us sent some names, and the IGF Secretariat decided. > > There was no time honestly to consult with say IGC. > > I was naively expecting that the IGC co-cos were already asked, or, being > Prepared, but unfortunately, that seems to be not the case. > > There should be sufficient time and more transparent process, I agree. > > izumi > > > 2013/10/21 Norbert Bollow > > > A quick request for CS MAG members: Could you please arrange for some > transparency in regard to what is going on in regard to selection of > CS speakers for IGF opening and closing? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 21 08:10:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:10:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20131021141025.5997c496@swan.bollow.ch> Dear Nnenna Here is one thought... it's a relatively heavy-weight one, so given that they'll probably only give you a short timespan, I think you'll probably be forced to either use it as a very major part of your intervention or avoid it altogether... So often we hear claims that multistakeholder cooperation makes things so much better for everyone including the end user. We should have some verifiability and accountability around those claims. What specifically does it take to make tech/Internet governance have a significant positive impact say on empowering people to overcome poverty? Or on preventing or reducing specific kinds of human rights violations? Greetings, Norbert Nnenna wrote: > Dear all > > I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during > the opening ceremony.  In order to be representative enough, I would > like to ask everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST > mention. > > Of course, I will not forget: > > 1. The centrality of human rights > 2. Multistakeholder participation o > 3. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation > 4. Not losing the "development focus" of IG > > 5. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability > 6. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency > of MS IG processes at national levels 7. Brazil 2014? > 8. Surveillance? > 9. Best Bits? > All for now > > Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 08:30:10 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:30:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <20131021141025.5997c496@swan.bollow.ch> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20131021141025.5997c496@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear Nnenna > > Here is one thought... it's a relatively heavy-weight one, so given > that they'll probably only give you a short timespan, I think you'll > probably be forced to either use it as a very major part of your > intervention or avoid it altogether... I would avoid it altogether, unless we want to come across as barking mad. > > So often we hear claims that multistakeholder cooperation makes things > so much better for everyone including the end user. We should have some > verifiability and accountability around those claims. I have never heard this specific claim made. Can you substantiate this? What specifically > does it take to make tech/Internet governance have a significant > positive impact say on empowering people to overcome poverty? Or on > preventing or reducing specific kinds of human rights violations? A miracle? -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 21 08:37:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:37:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) In-Reply-To: References: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20131021143725.7268d5a8@swan.bollow.ch> > > After communication by email with the IGF secretariat proved to be > > difficult, Sala and I decided that I'd chase them up in person... > > this is worked out, and we now have the following room booked for > > the IGC meeting for the “lunch break” slot on day 1 of the IGF > > (Tuesday Oct 22)... > > > > Kintamani 8 William Drake wrote: > FWIW the MAG has a meeting then with Asst. SG Gass, so you'll be > minus a few people. Ouch. My sincere apologies to you and all other MAG members, especially given that it was your initiative/inspiration to make this happen! Alas there seems to not be a reasonable way to change the meeting time in the present last-minute kind of situation. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Mon Oct 21 08:47:25 2013 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:47:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <20131021141025.5997c496@swan.bollow.ch> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20131021141025.5997c496@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1382359645.41134.YahooMailNeo@web171303.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi Nnenna, Congratulations for the honor to speak @ the opening ceremony. The issue of “regulation” is so confused in Africa that at times its like the private sector is the one regulating government.   I suggest you make a statement on the role of civil society and other stakeholders in the regulation process in terms of control on the field. We were thinking of a multi Stakeholder platform to serve both the purpose of monitoring and follow up of the distribution of internet resources as per country.    Best regards    ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué  Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76  (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama, My blogWeb: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission Le Lundi 21 octobre 2013 14h11, Norbert Bollow a écrit : Dear Nnenna Here is one thought... it's a relatively heavy-weight one, so given that they'll probably only give you a short timespan, I think  you'll probably be forced to either use it as a very major part of your intervention or avoid it altogether... So often we hear claims that multistakeholder cooperation makes things so much better for everyone including the end user. We should have some verifiability and accountability around those claims. What specifically does it take to make tech/Internet governance have a significant positive impact say on empowering people to overcome poverty? Or on preventing or reducing specific kinds of human rights violations? Greetings, Norbert Nnenna wrote: > Dear all > > I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during > the opening ceremony.  In order to be representative enough, I would > like to ask everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST > mention. > > Of course, I will not forget: > >     1. The centrality of human rights >     2. Multistakeholder participation o >     3. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation >     4. Not losing the "development focus" of IG > >     5. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability >     6. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency > of MS IG processes at national levels 7. Brazil 2014? >     8. Surveillance? >     9. Best Bits? > All for now > > Nnenna ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Mon Oct 21 08:35:58 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:35:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <20131021141025.5997c496@swan.bollow.ch> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20131021141025.5997c496@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Selamat pagi Nnenna! Besides the main issues you have cited and will probably be complemented by the colleagues, I trust you will touch transversal issues such as the attention to gender in the governance processes. I know you are sensible to that matter: please do no forget the transversal one of respect to cultural and linguistic diversity. Terima kasih banyak -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From capdasiege at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 09:01:40 2013 From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:01:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bonsoir Nnenna, Je pense que le temps est trop court pour parler d'autres sujets cela va nous distraire, saisissons cette occasion de demain pour une fois de plus apporter notre forte contribution comme acteur clé de la gouvernance internet. Ainsi, je suggère qu'une place soit accordée dans ton invervention sur la question de l'accès par les handicapés. Bonne soirée. 2013/10/21 Nnenna > > Dear all > > I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during the > opening ceremony. In order to be representative enough, I would like to > ask everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST mention. > > Of course, I will not forget: > > 1. The centrality of human rights > 2. Multistakeholder participation o > 3. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation > 4. Not losing the "development focus" of IG > 5. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability > 6. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG > processes at national levels > 7. Brazil 2014? > 8. Surveillance? > 9. Best Bits? > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* Coordinateur Général Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS) *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * - *FGI du 22 au 25 Octobre 2013* à Bali, Indonésie - *ICANN48 du 17 au 21 Novembre* à Buenos Aires, Argentine - *ITU TELECOM WORLD du 19 au 22 Novembre 2013* Bangkok, Thailande CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique) BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 09:07:23 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:07:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Great! Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 20/10/2013, a las 23:22, Nnenna escribió: > > > Dear all > > I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during the opening ceremony. In order to be representative enough, I would like to ask everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST mention. > > Of course, I will not forget: > The centrality of human rights > Multistakeholder participation o > Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation > Not losing the "development focus" of IG > The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability > The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG processes at national levels > Brazil 2014? > Surveillance? > Best Bits? > All for now > > Nnenna > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chlebrum at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 09:18:05 2013 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (Chantal Lebrument) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:18:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <23271460-193B-4488-B6D8-97BCA29C7C48@gmail.com> ...et aux millions d'humains illettrés qui ont une chance d'accéder au monde grâce à internet (sujet 1 du workshop 302 demain matin en direct du Gabon, si la technologie le veut bien). Chantal Lebrument Open-Root Envoyé de mon iPhone > Le 21 oct. 2013 à 21:01, CAPDA CAPDA a écrit : > > Bonsoir Nnenna, > Je pense que le temps est trop court pour parler d'autres sujets cela va nous distraire, saisissons cette occasion de demain pour une fois de plus apporter notre forte contribution comme acteur clé de la gouvernance internet. Ainsi, je suggère qu'une place soit accordée dans ton invervention sur la question de l'accès par les handicapés. > > Bonne soirée. > > > 2013/10/21 Nnenna >> >> Dear all >> >> I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during the opening ceremony. In order to be representative enough, I would like to ask everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST mention. >> >> Of course, I will not forget: >> The centrality of human rights >> Multistakeholder participation o >> Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation >> Not losing the "development focus" of IG >> The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability >> The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG processes at national levels >> Brazil 2014? >> Surveillance? >> Best Bits? >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > > Michel TCHONANG LINZE > Coordinateur Général > Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS) > > ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC ! > > FGI du 22 au 25 Octobre 2013 à Bali, Indonésie > ICANN48 du 17 au 21 Novembre à Buenos Aires, Argentine > ITU TELECOM WORLD du 19 au 22 Novembre 2013 Bangkok, Thailande > CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique) > > BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN > > Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 > > Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr > > Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; www.tic-afrique.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amessinoukossi at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 09:33:57 2013 From: amessinoukossi at gmail.com (Kossi Amessinou) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:33:57 +0700 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <23271460-193B-4488-B6D8-97BCA29C7C48@gmail.com> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <23271460-193B-4488-B6D8-97BCA29C7C48@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bonsoir Chantal, Tu as aussi eu un problème de visa pour Bali? Le 21 octobre 2013 20:18, Chantal Lebrument a écrit : > ...et aux millions d'humains illettrés qui ont une chance d'accéder au > monde grâce à internet (sujet 1 du workshop 302 demain matin en direct du > Gabon, si la technologie le veut bien). > Chantal Lebrument > Open-Root > > Envoyé de mon iPhone > > Le 21 oct. 2013 à 21:01, CAPDA CAPDA a écrit : > > Bonsoir Nnenna, > Je pense que le temps est trop court pour parler d'autres sujets cela va > nous distraire, saisissons cette occasion de demain pour une fois de plus > apporter notre forte contribution comme acteur clé de la gouvernance > internet. Ainsi, je suggère qu'une place soit accordée dans ton > invervention sur la question de l'accès par les handicapés. > > Bonne soirée. > > > 2013/10/21 Nnenna > >> >> Dear all >> >> I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during the >> opening ceremony. In order to be representative enough, I would like to >> ask everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST mention. >> >> Of course, I will not forget: >> >> 1. The centrality of human rights >> 2. Multistakeholder participation o >> 3. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation >> 4. Not losing the "development focus" of IG >> 5. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability >> 6. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG >> processes at national levels >> 7. Brazil 2014? >> 8. Surveillance? >> 9. Best Bits? >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > > *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* > Coordinateur Général > > Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile > (ACSIS) > > *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * > > - *FGI du 22 au 25 Octobre 2013* à Bali, Indonésie > - *ICANN48 du 17 au 21 Novembre* à Buenos Aires, Argentine > - *ITU TELECOM WORLD du 19 au 22 Novembre 2013* Bangkok, Thailande > > CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le > Développement de l'Afrique) > > BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN > > Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 > > Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr > > Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- AMESSINOU Kossi Ingénieur TIC ICT Engineer Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 skype: amessinou @amessinou @bigf http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou Que Dieu vous bénisse Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 21 10:04:22 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:04:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting Announcement: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) In-Reply-To: <20131021143725.7268d5a8@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021143725.7268d5a8@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20131021160422.567dbe01@swan.bollow.ch> [With IGC coordinator hat on] There will be an IGC meeting tomorrow Tuesday during the “lunch break” slot. Directions for local people here in Bali: The meeting will take place 12.45-13.45, being there at 12.45 sharp (and for that reason possibly sacrificing lunch) will be appreciated but is not strictly required. The room is “Kintamani 8”... if you're facing the main conference hall, turn right and then take the stairs up. Then turn left; it is the first door on the left. Directions for potential remote participants: My expectation is that there will not be remote participation equipment in that room. Internet should theoretically be available, although I wouldn't bet on it being robust enough to be usable for any worthwhile remote participation. If someone nevertheless wants to try participating remotely, please post about your intention, and we'll try arranging something, possibly via irc. The starting time is 04.45 UTC and a timezone conversion tool is available at http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IGC+Meeting&iso=20131022T1245&p1=653 Agenda: 1. Round of introductions 2. Why we care about IGC and how we can make it meet our needs better 3. Any other discussion topics, with relevance to IGC or its mission, of interest to the participants This is *not* a decision-making meeting. A summary will be posted on the list afterwards. Greetings, Noerbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fsylla at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 10:08:04 2013 From: fsylla at gmail.com (Fatimata Seye Sylla) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:08:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Congratulations Nnenna! I am sure you will cover all the issues. Please put an emphasis on the underpriviledged and mostly women and handicapped in remote/rural areas who cannot really take advantage of the opportunities internet access can provide. Best, Fatimata 2013/10/21 Nnenna : > > Dear all > > I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during the > opening ceremony. In order to be representative enough, I would like to ask > everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST mention. > > Of course, I will not forget: > > The centrality of human rights > Multistakeholder participation o > Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation > Not losing the "development focus" of IG > The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability > The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG processes > at national levels > Brazil 2014? > Surveillance? > Best Bits? > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Fatimata Seye Sylla ICT4D, Education & Genre -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 10:13:24 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:13:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting Announcement: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) In-Reply-To: <20131021160422.567dbe01@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021143725.7268d5a8@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021160422.567dbe01@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Thank you for the Update. Best. Sonigitu Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > There will be an IGC meeting tomorrow Tuesday during the “lunch break” > slot. > > > Directions for local people here in Bali: > > The meeting will take place 12.45-13.45, being there at 12.45 sharp (and > for that reason possibly sacrificing lunch) will be appreciated but is > not strictly required. > > The room is “Kintamani 8”... if you're facing the main conference hall, > turn right and then take the stairs up. Then turn left; it is the first > door on the left. > > > Directions for potential remote participants: My expectation is that > there will not be remote participation equipment in that room. Internet > should theoretically be available, although I wouldn't bet on it > being robust enough to be usable for any worthwhile remote > participation. If someone nevertheless wants to try participating > remotely, please post about your intention, and we'll try arranging > something, possibly via irc. The starting time is 04.45 UTC and a > timezone conversion tool is available at > > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IGC+Meeting&iso=20131022T1245&p1=653 > > > Agenda: > > 1. Round of introductions > > 2. Why we care about IGC and how we can make it meet our needs better > > 3. Any other discussion topics, with relevance to IGC or its mission, of > interest to the participants > > > This is *not* a decision-making meeting. A summary will be posted on > the list afterwards. > > Greetings, > Noerbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 10:13:56 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:13:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fw: Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382329352.97133.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Nnenna ... can you communicate in your statement the ongoing challenges that ALL users continue to face in the over 50 Small Island Developing States (SIDS) scattered throughout our various oceans and seas, and the need for all stakeholders to pay special attention to finding solutions for these challenges especially in the areas of Critical Information and Internet Infrastructure, Broadband pricing and Access issues? Many thanks, Tracy On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Nnenna wrote: > > Dear all > > I shall be speaking on behalf of global Civil Society tomorrow during the > opening ceremony. In order to be representative enough, I would like to > ask everyone to share what critical issues they think I MUST mention. > > Of course, I will not forget: > > 1. The centrality of human rights > 2. Multistakeholder participation o > 3. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation > 4. Not losing the "development focus" of IG > 5. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability > 6. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG > processes at national levels > 7. Brazil 2014? > 8. Surveillance? > 9. Best Bits? > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 21 10:25:39 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear all   Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input.  Below, I have tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. ======= A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds B. Key principles : 120 seconds 1. Human rights  and the safeguard of diversity 2. Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels 3. The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, support health services, education and provide opportunities C : Our aims : 120 seconds 1. Enhanced cooperation 2. Affordable Internet 3. Accessibility of and on the Internet 4. Viable and capable IG processes at national levels D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds 1. Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of Internet as a tool for social justice and equity 2. The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across the globe E : Thanks – 30 seconds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 21 10:33:54 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:33:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Payswarm Message-ID: <20131021163354.0c804826@swan.bollow.ch> Dear all Just a quick note to alert you all that I think that the payswarm stuff that Manu Sporny will be discussing in workshop No. 160 “Emerging issues for fair trade and taxation of virtual goods” (Wednesday 23 October 2013, 16.30-18.00 in room Uluwatu 5) is very important for a variety of reasons, including some that many civil society people feel strongly about, for example because it promises to bridge international divides in online payments. It's fundamentally a decentralized, openly-standardized, open source implemented, easy-to-use, URL-based payment system approach, while they're also very careful to stay on the right side of the law in regard to taxation and regulation issues. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Mon Oct 21 10:39:27 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:39:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: ,<1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Looks good Nnenna. On the point on MS and participation, please try and emphasise the need for a clear framework for this. RgdsGG Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:25:39 -0700 From: nne75 at yahoo.com To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] Dear all Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. ======= A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds B. Key principles : 120 seconds Human rights and the safeguard of diversity Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, support health services, education and provide opportunities C : Our aims : 120 seconds Enhanced cooperation Affordable Internet Accessibility of and on the Internet Viable and capable IG processes at national levels D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of Internet as a tool for social justice and equity The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across the globe E : Thanks – 30 seconds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Oct 21 11:15:16 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:15:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS speakers In-Reply-To: <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131021062725.72486470@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021101111.0052e644@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20131021101111.0052e644 at swan.bollow.ch>, at 10:11:11 on Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >Has CS been singled out with this kind of treatment, or have all groups >of stakeholders including governments been treated with this kind of >disorganization on an equal footing? Big events like this often have an aura of barely managed chaos. If you don't have sufficient feet on the ground, and the right ground at exactly the right time, then probably you'll not get what you aspired to. This is another [dis]like for trying to telecommute everything. No substitute for the professional lobbyist's maxim of "always be there, and always be on time". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Oct 21 12:39:14 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:39:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] SOCIAL MEDIA - #IGF2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <526558B2.9030600@apc.org> hi all from IGF secretariat - hashtags for 2013 IGF anriette All, During all of the main/focus sessions, please take some time/make a short announcement about using the following hash-tags so that we can best capture the social media activity during these sessions - we'll also inform all of the workshop organizers to use these as well .. For everything: #IGF2013 Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS Internet Governance Principles: #IGP Of course everyone is welcome to use other hash tags and they will, but this will help us capture the messages coming from social media in a much more organized way, and to allow everyone around the world following remotely to follow the proceedings in an easier way - most important is to announce at the beginning of each session to remember to use #igf2013/#IGF2013 prior to doing anything on social media ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Oct 21 12:42:36 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:42:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] SOCIAL MEDIA - #IGF2013 In-Reply-To: <526558B2.9030600@apc.org> References: <526558B2.9030600@apc.org> Message-ID: Nice! Thanks, Anriette! On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > hi all > > from IGF secretariat - hashtags for 2013 IGF > > anriette > > > All, > > During all of the main/focus sessions, please take some time/make a short > announcement about using the following hash-tags so that we can best > capture the social media activity during these sessions - we'll also inform > all of the workshop organizers to use these as well .. > > For everything: #IGF2013 > > Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D > > Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR > > Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC > > Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS > > Internet Governance Principles: #IGP > > Of course everyone is welcome to use other hash tags and they will, but > this will help us capture the messages coming from social media in a much > more organized way, and to allow everyone around the world following > remotely to follow the proceedings in an easier way - most important is to > announce at the beginning of each session to remember to use > #igf2013/#IGF2013 prior to doing anything on social media ... > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 13:28:31 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 01:28:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] Presentations at the High Level Panel Meeting in Bali Message-ID: <032301cece82$fe80b040$fb8210c0$@gmail.com> Can anyone point me to a URL for the presentation by the US representative to the High Level Panel in Bali yesterday where he was discussing the agreements on the operations of the rule of law in cyberspace? M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 16:28:21 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:28:21 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] Message-ID: Dear All, In yesterday's breakfast chat, we invited the community to give us feedback on their position on the 21 clauses that are extensions of the 10 broad principles produced by the Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition. Thank you for those who have sent their feedback. Kindly advise us whether you support it, have reservations or object to it. Kindly note that before Day 2 (which is tomorrow) we would like to have received as much feedback as possible so we can channel your views through to the Coalition in their Workshop. Please also put your country in paranthesis. Marianne Franklin also has alot of booklets (hard copies of the Principles) and she is happy to give them out for those wishing to take some back to their communities for further engagement and discussion or adoption. They are free. *IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments]* 10 Broad Principles * * 1. *Universality* 2. * Accessibility* 3. * Neutrality* 4. * Rights* 5. * Expression* 6. *Life, Liberty, and Security* 7. *Privacy* 8. *Diversity* 9. *Standards & Regulation* 10. *Governance* Source: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf *1. **Right to Access to the Internet* Support: Harish Pillay (Singapore) *2. **Right to Non- Discrimination to Internet Access, Use and Governance * Support: Harish Pillay (Singapore) *3. **Right to Liberty and Security on the Internet* Support: Harish Pillay (Singapore) *4. Right to Development through the Internet* *5. Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet* *6. Freedom of Religion and Belief on the Internet* *7. Freedom of Online Assembly and Association* *8. Right to Privacy on the Internet* *9. Right to Digital Data Protection* *10. **Right to Education On or About the Internet* *11. Right to Culture and Access to Knowledge on the Internet*** *12. Rights of Children On the Internet* *13 Rights of People with Disabilities and the Internet* *14. Right to Work and the Internet*** *Reservation: McTim (US)* *15. Rights to Online Participation in Public Affairs* *16. Rights to Consumer Protection on the Internet* *17. Rights to Health and Social Services on the Internet*** *Reservation: McTim (US)* *18. Right to Legal Remedy and Fair Trial for Actions Involving the Internet * *19 Right to Appropriate Social and International Order for the Internet*** Reservation: McTim (US) *20. Duties and Responsibilities of the Internet*** *Objection: McTim (US)* *21. **General Clauses* *Additional Comments* [Harish Pillay]: I can see the value of three separately stated rights, but I am curious as to the downside of listing them all in one or for that matter subparts of 1 like 1a), 1b) and 1c). > 4. Right to Development through the Internet > > 5. Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet > > 6. Freedom of Religion and Belief on the Internet > > 7. Freedom of Online Assembly and Association > > 8. Right to Privacy on the Internet > > 9. Right to Digital Data Protection Shouldn't 8 and 9 be placed with 1-4? > 10. Right to Education On or About the Internet > > 11. Rights of Children On the Internet > > 12. Rights of People with Disabilities and the Internet > > 13. Right to Work and the Internet > > 14. Rights to Online Participation in Public Affairs > > 15. Rights to Consumer Protection on the Internet > > 16. Rights to Health and Social Services on the Internet > > 17. Right to Legal Remedy and Fair Trial for Actions Involving the Internet > > 18. Right to Appropriate Social and International Order for the Internet > > 19. Duties and Responsibilities of the Internet > [John Curran]: FYI, pdf has a #11 re culture, which your list below does not. (i.e. 21 total in the pdf, not 20) Editor’s Note: Thank you John for highlighting the mistake. This has been corrected accordingly. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 21 16:32:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:32:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <141dcb7e7f0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I share mctim's reservation on 19 and 20 --srs (htc one x) On 21 October 2013 1:28:21 PM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > Dear All, > > In yesterday's breakfast chat, we invited the community to give us feedback > on their position on the 21 clauses that are extensions of the 10 broad > principles produced by the Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition. Thank > you for those who have sent their feedback. Kindly advise us whether you > support it, have reservations or object to it. Kindly note that before Day > 2 (which is tomorrow) we would like to have received as much feedback as > possible so we can channel your views through to the Coalition in their > Workshop. Please also put your country in paranthesis. > > Marianne Franklin also has alot of booklets (hard copies of the Principles) > and she is happy to give them out for those wishing to take some back to > their communities for further engagement and discussion or adoption. They > are free. > > > > *IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for > Comments]* > > > > 10 Broad Principles > > * > * > > > 1. *Universality* > 2. * Accessibility* > 3. * Neutrality* > 4. * Rights* > 5. * Expression* > 6. *Life, Liberty, and Security* > 7. *Privacy* > 8. *Diversity* > 9. *Standards & Regulation* > 10. *Governance* > > > > Source: > http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf > > *1. **Right to Access to the Internet* > > Support: Harish Pillay (Singapore) > > *2. **Right to Non- Discrimination to Internet Access, Use and Governance > * > > Support: Harish Pillay (Singapore) > > *3. **Right to Liberty and Security on the Internet* > > Support: Harish Pillay (Singapore) > > *4. Right to Development through the Internet* > > *5. Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet* > > *6. Freedom of Religion and Belief on the Internet* > > *7. Freedom of Online Assembly and Association* > > *8. Right to Privacy on the Internet* > > *9. Right to Digital Data Protection* > > *10. **Right to Education On or About the Internet* > > *11. Right to Culture and Access to Knowledge on the Internet*** > > *12. Rights of Children On the Internet* > > *13 Rights of People with Disabilities and the Internet* > > *14. Right to Work and the Internet*** > > *Reservation: McTim (US)* > > *15. Rights to Online Participation in Public Affairs* > > *16. Rights to Consumer Protection on the Internet* > > *17. Rights to Health and Social Services on the Internet*** > > *Reservation: McTim (US)* > > *18. Right to Legal Remedy and Fair Trial for Actions Involving the Internet > * > > *19 Right to Appropriate Social and International Order for the Internet*** > > Reservation: McTim (US) > > *20. Duties and Responsibilities of the Internet*** > > *Objection: McTim (US)* > > *21. **General Clauses* > > > > *Additional Comments* > > [Harish Pillay]: > > I can see the value of three separately stated rights, but I am curious > as to the downside of listing them all in one or for that matter subparts > of 1 like 1a), 1b) and 1c). > > > > 4. Right to Development through the Internet > > > > 5. Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet > > > > 6. Freedom of Religion and Belief on the Internet > > > > 7. Freedom of Online Assembly and Association > > > > 8. Right to Privacy on the Internet > > > > 9. Right to Digital Data Protection > > Shouldn't 8 and 9 be placed with 1-4? > > > > 10. Right to Education On or About the Internet > > > > 11. Rights of Children On the Internet > > > > 12. Rights of People with Disabilities and the Internet > > > > 13. Right to Work and the Internet > > > > 14. Rights to Online Participation in Public Affairs > > > > 15. Rights to Consumer Protection on the Internet > > > > 16. Rights to Health and Social Services on the Internet > > > > 17. Right to Legal Remedy and Fair Trial for Actions Involving the > Internet > > > > 18. Right to Appropriate Social and International Order for the Internet > > > > 19. Duties and Responsibilities of the Internet > > > > > > > > [John Curran]: > > FYI, pdf has a #11 re culture, which your list below does not. > > > > (i.e. 21 total in the pdf, not 20) > > > > Editor’s Note: Thank you John for highlighting the mistake. This has been > corrected accordingly. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 16:33:45 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:33:45 +0800 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Nnenna, Firstly, all the best this morning as you speak this morning. Fly the flag, hoist the banner and shout from the mountain top :) Kindly add that whilst the Internet Governance is in crisis where stakeholders need to work together to rebuild trust that civil society, private sector and public sector need to recognise the need for open and honest dialogue and collaborate in good faith. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > Looks good Nnenna. On the point on MS and participation, please try and > emphasise the need for a clear framework for this. > > Rgds > GG > > ------------------------------ > Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:25:39 -0700 > From: nne75 at yahoo.com > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] > > > Dear all > > Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I > received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried > to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am > reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. > > ======= > > A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds > B. Key principles : 120 seconds > > 1. Human rights and the safeguard of diversity > 2. Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels > 3. The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, > support health services, education and provide opportunities > > C : Our aims : 120 seconds > > 1. Enhanced cooperation > 2. Affordable Internet > 3. Accessibility of and on the Internet > 4. Viable and capable IG processes at national levels > > D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds > > 1. Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of > Internet as a tool for social justice and equity > 2. The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across > the globe > > E : Thanks – 30 seconds > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Oct 21 16:33:52 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Breakfast Chat In-Reply-To: <42F52DC7-AB92-42E9-B512-8026F0DBFD53@gmail.com> References: <42F52DC7-AB92-42E9-B512-8026F0DBFD53@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1382387632.46773.YahooMailNeo@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All I agree, many of these "10" principles have sticky issues and cause dilemmas. I too strongly object to several of them in addition to 13,16 and 20 !! Raises the question of whether we followed sufficient due process, could we have been more inclusive of authors and participants of diverse view points during the discussion and authorship phase ? regards   Shaila Rao Mistry  President StemInstitute Transforming Ideas into Action   President JAYCOMMI Input Technology With A Human Touch      The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! On Sunday, October 20, 2013 7:35 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > I have reservations about 13, 16, 18 and I object strongly to #20. [ST] Noted McTim > > What "Duties and Responsibilities" could a non-human/non-organisation have? > > Does anybody have a link to the HLM webcast? Is there one? Don't have it, will find out. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 16:36:13 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:36:13 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: <141dcb7e7f0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <141dcb7e7f0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: I have noted your reservations Suresh. On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I share mctim's reservation on 19 and 20 > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 21 October 2013 1:28:21 PM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" ** wrote: > > Dear All, > > In yesterday's breakfast chat, we invited the community to give us > feedback on their position on the 21 clauses that are extensions of the 10 > broad principles produced by the Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition. > Thank you for those who have sent their feedback. Kindly advise us whether > you support it, have reservations or object to it. Kindly note that before > Day 2 (which is tomorrow) we would like to have received as much feedback > as possible so we can channel your views through to the Coalition in their > Workshop. Please also put your country in paranthesis. > > Marianne Franklin also has alot of booklets (hard copies of the > Principles) and she is happy to give them out for those wishing to take > some back to their communities for further engagement and discussion or > adoption. They are free. > > > > *IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for > Comments]* > > > > 10 Broad Principles > > * > * > > > 1. *Universality* > 2. * Accessibility* > 3. * Neutrality* > 4. * Rights* > 5. * Expression* > 6. *Life, Liberty, and Security* > 7. *Privacy* > 8. *Diversity* > 9. *Standards & Regulation* > 10. *Governance* > > > > Source: > http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf > > *1. **Right to Access to the Internet* > > Support: Harish Pillay (Singapore) > > *2. **Right to Non- Discrimination to Internet Access, Use and > Governance* > > Support: Harish Pillay (Singapore) > > *3. **Right to Liberty and Security on the Internet* > > Support: Harish Pillay (Singapore) > > *4. Right to Development through the Internet* > > *5. Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet* > > *6. Freedom of Religion and Belief on the Internet* > > *7. Freedom of Online Assembly and Association* > > *8. Right to Privacy on the Internet* > > *9. Right to Digital Data Protection* > > *10. **Right to Education On or About the Internet* > > *11. Right to Culture and Access to Knowledge on the Internet*** > > *12. Rights of Children On the Internet* > > *13 Rights of People with Disabilities and the Internet* > > *14. Right to Work and the Internet*** > > *Reservation: McTim (US)* > > *15. Rights to Online Participation in Public Affairs* > > *16. Rights to Consumer Protection on the Internet* > > *17. Rights to Health and Social Services on the Internet*** > > *Reservation: McTim (US)* > > *18. Right to Legal Remedy and Fair Trial for Actions Involving the > Internet* > > *19 Right to Appropriate Social and International Order for the Internet** > * > > Reservation: McTim (US) > > *20. Duties and Responsibilities of the Internet*** > > *Objection: McTim (US)* > > *21. **General Clauses* > > > > *Additional Comments* > > [Harish Pillay]: > > I can see the value of three separately stated rights, but I am curious > as to the downside of listing them all in one or for that matter subparts > of 1 like 1a), 1b) and 1c). > > > > 4. Right to Development through the Internet > > > > 5. Freedom of Expression and Information on the Internet > > > > 6. Freedom of Religion and Belief on the Internet > > > > 7. Freedom of Online Assembly and Association > > > > 8. Right to Privacy on the Internet > > > > 9. Right to Digital Data Protection > > Shouldn't 8 and 9 be placed with 1-4? > > > > 10. Right to Education On or About the Internet > > > > 11. Rights of Children On the Internet > > > > 12. Rights of People with Disabilities and the Internet > > > > 13. Right to Work and the Internet > > > > 14. Rights to Online Participation in Public Affairs > > > > 15. Rights to Consumer Protection on the Internet > > > > 16. Rights to Health and Social Services on the Internet > > > > 17. Right to Legal Remedy and Fair Trial for Actions Involving the > Internet > > > > 18. Right to Appropriate Social and International Order for the Internet > > > > 19. Duties and Responsibilities of the Internet > > > > > > > > [John Curran]: > > FYI, pdf has a #11 re culture, which your list below does not. > > > > (i.e. 21 total in the pdf, not 20) > > > > Editor’s Note: Thank you John for highlighting the mistake. This has been > corrected accordingly. J > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 16:39:23 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:39:23 +0800 Subject: [governance] Breakfast Chat In-Reply-To: <1382387632.46773.YahooMailNeo@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <42F52DC7-AB92-42E9-B512-8026F0DBFD53@gmail.com> <1382387632.46773.YahooMailNeo@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Shaila, Please clarify that by 13 do you mean Rights of People with disabilities on the Internet or 14 which is Right to work on the internet. There was an error in the numbering and one clause was missing which affected the numbering. The list sent today is the correct one. See: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf I am assuming you mean 14, 17 and 21??? Please clarify and confirm. Sala On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:33 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > > Dear All > I agree, many of these "10" principles have sticky issues and cause > dilemmas. I too strongly object to several of them in addition to 13,16 and > 20 !! > Raises the question of whether we followed sufficient due process, could > we have been more inclusive of authors and participants of diverse view > points during the discussion and authorship phase ? > > regards > > Shaila Rao Mistry > President > Stem Institute > Transforming Ideas into Action > > President > *JAYCO* MMI > *Input Technology With A Human Touch > * > > > * > * > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > *..................... the renaissance of composure ! > * > > > On Sunday, October 20, 2013 7:35 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I have reservations about 13, 16, 18 and I object strongly to #20. > [ST] Noted McTim > > > > What "Duties and Responsibilities" could a non-human/non-organisation > have? > > > > Does anybody have a link to the HLM webcast? Is there one? > Don't have it, will find out. > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Oct 21 16:55:06 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Breakfast Chat In-Reply-To: References: <42F52DC7-AB92-42E9-B512-8026F0DBFD53@gmail.com> <1382387632.46773.YahooMailNeo@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1382388906.57952.YahooMailNeo@web160504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Sala The numbering on the email I received was off by one. Thank you for pointing it out. Also is it possible to raise the critical point of inclusion of more authors and participants in the future than were included during the writing phase of the Charter 2.0? Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideals into Action   President JAYCOMMI Input Technology With A Human Touch     The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Shaila, Please clarify that by 13 do you mean Rights of People with disabilities on the Internet or 14 which is Right to work on the internet. There was an error in the numbering and one clause was missing which affected the numbering. The list sent today is the correct one. See: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf I am assuming you mean 14, 17 and 21??? Please clarify and confirm.  Sala On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:33 AM, shaila mistry wrote: >Dear All >I agree, many of these "10" principles have sticky issues and cause dilemmas. I too strongly object to several of them in addition to 13,16 and 20 !! >Raises the question of whether we followed sufficient due process, could we have been more inclusive of authors and participants of diverse view points during the discussion and authorship phase ? > >regards > >  >Shaila Rao Mistry > President >StemInstitute >Transforming Ideas into Action >  >President >JAYCOMMI >Input Technology With A Human Touch > >  >   > > >The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! >..................... the renaissance of composure ! > > > > >On Sunday, October 20, 2013 7:35 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > >> >> I have reservations about 13, 16, 18 and I object strongly to #20. >[ST] Noted McTim >> >> What "Duties and Responsibilities" could a non-human/non-organisation have? >> >> Does anybody have a link to the HLM webcast? Is there one? >Don't have it, will find out. > >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 17:04:25 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:04:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] Breakfast Chat In-Reply-To: <1382388906.57952.YahooMailNeo@web160504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <42F52DC7-AB92-42E9-B512-8026F0DBFD53@gmail.com> <1382387632.46773.YahooMailNeo@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1382388906.57952.YahooMailNeo@web160504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Shaila, That is the point of this exercise to gather feedback and channel it back to the Coalition. I should also add that developing a starting point for the discussion is a massive feat and the Coalition should be congratulated. The process clearly does'nt end in Bali as communities around the world also need to have the discussion. Human Rights Conventions namely the ICCPR and ICESCR and the subsequent optional protocols represent the camps and distinctions in philosophical base for nation states. For something like the Internet where diverse stakeholders who are just a drop in the bucket of the 2.7billion people who use the internet, we are bound to have diversity and that is to be expected. However from the IGC, it would be useful to also see how people are feeling about some of the specific principles. Hope this helps! Also we need to get the message out to our communities. Sala On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:55 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > Sala > The numbering on the email I received was off by one. Thank you for > pointing it out. > Also is it possible to raise the critical point of inclusion of more > authors and participants in the future than were included during the > writing phase of the Charter 2.0? > > Shaila Rao Mistry > > > President > Stem Institute > Transforming Ideals into Action > > President > *JAYCO* MMI > *Input Technology With A Human Touch* > * > * > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > *..................... the renaissance of composure ! > * > > > On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Shaila, > > Please clarify that by 13 do you mean Rights of People with disabilities > on the Internet or 14 which is Right to work on the internet. There was an > error in the numbering and one clause was missing which affected the > numbering. The list sent today is the correct one. See: > http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf > > I am assuming you mean 14, 17 and 21??? Please clarify and confirm. > > Sala > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:33 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > > > Dear All > I agree, many of these "10" principles have sticky issues and cause > dilemmas. I too strongly object to several of them in addition to 13,16 and > 20 !! > Raises the question of whether we followed sufficient due process, could > we have been more inclusive of authors and participants of diverse view > points during the discussion and authorship phase ? > > regards > > Shaila Rao Mistry > President > Stem Institute > Transforming Ideas into Action > > President > *JAYCO* MMI > *Input Technology With A Human Touch > * > > > * > * > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > *..................... the renaissance of composure ! > * > > > On Sunday, October 20, 2013 7:35 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I have reservations about 13, 16, 18 and I object strongly to #20. > [ST] Noted McTim > > > > What "Duties and Responsibilities" could a non-human/non-organisation > have? > > > > Does anybody have a link to the HLM webcast? Is there one? > Don't have it, will find out. > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dcogburn at syr.edu Mon Oct 21 17:14:06 2013 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:14:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: ,<1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Nenna. Looks great. As we discussed, in line with the recent UN High-Level Meeting on Disability and Development at the General Assembly, I would encourage you to revise D1 very slightly to say: "Women, youth and persons with disabilities participation" Cheers, Derrick Sent from my iPhone Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Syracuse University - iSchool American University - SIS COTELCO http://cotelco.net/ http://aseanidpp.org/ On Oct 21, 2013, at 10:26 PM, "Nnenna" > wrote: Dear all Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. ======= A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds B. Key principles : 120 seconds 1. Human rights and the safeguard of diversity 2. Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels 3. The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, support health services, education and provide opportunities C : Our aims : 120 seconds 1. Enhanced cooperation 2. Affordable Internet 3. Accessibility of and on the Internet 4. Viable and capable IG processes at national levels D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds 1. Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of Internet as a tool for social justice and equity 2. The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across the globe E : Thanks – 30 seconds ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 17:25:10 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:25:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > In yesterday's breakfast chat, we invited the community to give us feedback > on their position on the 21 clauses that are extensions of the 10 broad > principles produced by the Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition. Thank > you for those who have sent their feedback. Kindly advise us whether you > support it, have reservations or object to it. Kindly note that before Day 2 > (which is tomorrow) we would like to have received as much feedback as > possible so we can channel your views through to the Coalition in their > Workshop. Please also put your country in paranthesis. I object to being identified by country. The Internet is transnational. I am a citizen of one nation, but have lived in many more. I don't represent my country, just myself. We need to move beyond Westphalianism at the IGF> -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 17:30:12 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:30:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > I object to being identified by country. The Internet is > transnational. I am a citizen of one nation, but have lived in many > more. I don't represent my country, just myself. > > We need to move beyond Westphalianism at the IGF> [ST]: McTim I hear what you are saying. Your view does not in anyway represent your country and I agree and it will be noted and recorded. It is just to help us know where you are based physically. > > > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 17:33:21 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:33:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >> I object to being identified by country. The Internet is >> transnational. I am a citizen of one nation, but have lived in many >> more. I don't represent my country, just myself. >> >> We need to move beyond Westphalianism at the IGF> > > > [ST]: McTim I hear what you are saying. Your view does not in anyway > represent your country and I agree and it will be noted and recorded. It is > just to help us know where you are based physically. Why is that a useful metric? -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 17:35:19 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 05:35:19 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Why is that a useful metric? > > Skype me, I am online if you are available to chat. > -- > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From capdasiege at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 18:01:46 2013 From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:01:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] SOCIAL MEDIA - #IGF2013 In-Reply-To: <526558B2.9030600@apc.org> References: <526558B2.9030600@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Anriette, Good job, beautiful Best 2013/10/21 Anriette Esterhuysen > hi all > > from IGF secretariat - hashtags for 2013 IGF > > anriette > > > All, > > During all of the main/focus sessions, please take some time/make a short > announcement about using the following hash-tags so that we can best > capture the social media activity during these sessions - we'll also inform > all of the workshop organizers to use these as well .. > > For everything: #IGF2013 > > Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D > > Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR > > Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC > > Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS > > Internet Governance Principles: #IGP > > Of course everyone is welcome to use other hash tags and they will, but > this will help us capture the messages coming from social media in a much > more organized way, and to allow everyone around the world following > remotely to follow the proceedings in an easier way - most important is to > announce at the beginning of each session to remember to use > #igf2013/#IGF2013 prior to doing anything on social media ... > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* Coordinateur Général Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS) *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * - *FGI du 22 au 25 Octobre 2013* à Bali, Indonésie - *ICANN48 du 17 au 21 Novembre* à Buenos Aires, Argentine - *ITU TELECOM WORLD du 19 au 22 Novembre 2013* Bangkok, Thailande CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique) BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 18:05:31 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:05:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] SOCIAL MEDIA - #IGF2013 In-Reply-To: References: <526558B2.9030600@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks...very good Antonio Medina 2013/10/21 CAPDA CAPDA > Hi Anriette, > > Good job, beautiful > > Best > > > 2013/10/21 Anriette Esterhuysen > >> hi all >> >> from IGF secretariat - hashtags for 2013 IGF >> >> anriette >> >> >> All, >> >> During all of the main/focus sessions, please take some time/make a short >> announcement about using the following hash-tags so that we can best >> capture the social media activity during these sessions - we'll also inform >> all of the workshop organizers to use these as well .. >> >> For everything: #IGF2013 >> >> Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D >> >> Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR >> >> Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC >> >> Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS >> >> Internet Governance Principles: #IGP >> >> Of course everyone is welcome to use other hash tags and they will, but >> this will help us capture the messages coming from social media in a much >> more organized way, and to allow everyone around the world following >> remotely to follow the proceedings in an easier way - most important is to >> announce at the beginning of each session to remember to use >> #igf2013/#IGF2013 prior to doing anything on social media ... >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > > *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* > Coordinateur Général > > Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile > (ACSIS) > > *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * > > - *FGI du 22 au 25 Octobre 2013* à Bali, Indonésie > - *ICANN48 du 17 au 21 Novembre* à Buenos Aires, Argentine > - *ITU TELECOM WORLD du 19 au 22 Novembre 2013* Bangkok, Thailande > > CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le > Développement de l'Afrique) > > BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN > > Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 > > Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr > > Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 21 18:14:25 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:14:25 +1100 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <351F27F31D624FB889E904E6026E15C8@Toshiba> Looks great Nnenna. I wonder if at the same time we talk about unwarranted surveillance we can raise the related issue of personal data (including personal contact lists) being used by corporations for marketing purposes without explicit permission. From: Nnenna Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:25 AM To: IG Caucus Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] Dear all Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. ======= A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds B. Key principles : 120 seconds 1.. Human rights and the safeguard of diversity 2.. Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels 3.. The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, support health services, education and provide opportunities C : Our aims : 120 seconds 1.. Enhanced cooperation 2.. Affordable Internet 3.. Accessibility of and on the Internet 4.. Viable and capable IG processes at national levels D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds 1.. Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of Internet as a tool for social justice and equity 2.. The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across the globe E : Thanks – 30 seconds -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Mon Oct 21 18:50:41 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:50:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > [ST]: McTim I hear what you are saying. Your view does not in anyway > > represent your country and I agree and it will be noted and recorded. It is > > just to help us know where you are based physically. > >Why is that a useful metric? A possible answer could be fo instance to have some statistics about the attendance from developing countries civil society where the cost of such traveling is hardly supported by universities of Civil Socity Organizations without some type of international mechanism (which did occur more frequently during the WSIS and tend to disappear now leaving a potential balance problem which should be tracked). Another possible answer could be linked to linguistic diversity. It is indeed a good practice for any international meeting to have at hand statistics on different factors which need to be tracked (geographical presence, gender presence...etc). Dont you agree that equitable balance in some key factors is a worthwile objective? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From r.deibert at utoronto.ca Mon Oct 21 19:44:00 2013 From: r.deibert at utoronto.ca (Ronald Deibert) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:44:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Monitoring Information Controls During the Bali IGF Message-ID: Hi IG list. This may be of interest to the group. Inputs and feedback are welcome. Ron https://citizenlab.org/2013/10/monitoring-information-controls-bali-igf/ Monitoring Information Controls During the Bali IGF October 21, 2013 Monitoring Information Controls During the Bali IGF Introduction On October 22-25, 2013, Indonesia will host the eighth annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the issues and policies of Internet governance. The main theme of this year’s IGF is “Building Bridges: Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development.” This post is the first in a series that will explore online freedom of expression and the state of information controls in Indonesia in the context of their role as host of the IGF, comparing Indonesia’s information controls with similar practices in the region, the rest of the world, and events similar to the IGF. We will also analyze how these practices are driven by Indonesia’s social, political, and cultural context, and the role that international norms play in influencing information controls. Major global events are frequently a focal point for the exercise of and contests over information controls, including Internet censorship and surveillance, disruptions to mobile and other communications systems, and tampering with Internet connectivity. Such information controls are often highly dynamic, responding to the changing situation on the ground when information can have the greatest impact. We have called such practices “just-in-time” information controls — denying, disrupting, manipulating or monitoring access to information during important political moments.1 High profile, global events can have significant political, social and economic consequences for host countries, and may come with new security and surveillance measures as a result.2 Several Citizen Lab researchers and associates who are attending the IGF are participating in the research for these posts, including those who have been situated in Indonesia for some time as part of the civil society stakeholder preparations for the 2013 IGF. Additionally, we are capitalizing on the expertise and input of Indonesian colleagues, including those who are part of the Cyber Stewards Network,3 to provide much-needed context and nuance around the analysis presented here. We are also mindful of others who are attending the IGF and are engaging in their own separate monitoring activities, and intend to reference their work as much as possible and when appropriate. Citizen Lab staff working remotely will be providing input into and support for network measurement and legal and policy analysis. We frame our analysis with the following topics and questions, which will in turn inform a series of forthcoming posts: Infrastructure and Governance: The application of information controls in a country is highly influenced by the domestic political, economic, and social context in which they are applied. Each country’s communication infrastructure is unique, differentiated by factors such as the number of Internet service providers (ISPs), telecommunication companies, the degree of market competition among them, and the overall level of Internet penetration and growth. In some countries numerous ISPs and a highly competitive market environment can act as a constraint on state-driven information controls, whereas in other countries with fewer ISPs and less democratic regimes, state regulations can be more centrally implemented and sometimes more constraining. International connectivity and upstream peering arrangements can also shape the nature of information controls, as do regional and international governance regimes of which the country may be a member. Most importantly, the regime type of the country in question can have a major influence over the nature of information controls. The Indonesian government has traditionally been supportive of ICT development. Internet penetration has increased since the beginning of the century, from less than one percent in 2000 to 15.36 per cent in 2012. Cellular phone penetration has increased at an exponential rate over the same time period, from 1.72 to 115.20 cellular phone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants from 2000 to 2012. The government is planning to increase basic telephone services to thousands of villages across the country and is trying to increase Internet penetration to the country’s easternmost islands. Indonesia has over 250 ISPs. The two largest telecommunications operators, PT Telekom and PT Indosat, were partially privatized in the mid-90s after years of state-control, although the government continues to own shares in both companies. As ICT penetration in Indonesia has increased, so have the regulations and laws, some having as their impetus the perceived necessities of dealing with growing cyber crime issues others having to do with content controls. ISPs and telecommunications companies have voiced their concerns that these laws lack clarity and may place burdens on their services.4 Our post will examine the following questions: How is cyberspace constituted in Indonesia? What is the political economy of Internet governance and use in the country? How are laws and regulations over the Internet implemented? What autonomy do ISPs have to implement laws and rules, and what practices inform implementation of controls in Indonesia? How do these practices compare to other countries? Is the Indonesian government developing a cyber security strategy? What policies does it include, and how will these impact information controls? How have issues of cyber crime been perceived in Indonesia and what have been the institutional and legal responses? Does the Indonesian government have a “regional” or “foreign policy” for cyberspace? Content Controls: Information controls include those whose aim is to control the content accessible to a population, including information posted online. Content controls can include laws and regulations that restrict free speech online or in certain media, as well as technical measures designed to limit access to information — otherwise known as “Internet filtering.” Since 2003, the Citizen Lab, as a founding member of the OpenNet Initiative,5 has conducted testing of Internet filtering in 74 countries, and has found that of these 74 countries, 42 engage in some form of content filtering. The type of content being filtered varies across countries, and depends on local political, legal, social, and cultural contexts. We employ a multidisciplinary approach that includes technical testing of government mandated Internet censorship policies and practices, field research by regional and country-level experts, as well as analysis of the country’s legal and regulatory filtering framework. The combination of technical investigation with political, social and legal contextual work is essential for understanding both how and why information controls are applied.6 We also aim to determine the specific techniques and, where possible, the products that are used to implement Internet content filtering. OpenNet Initiative testing in 2010 on four Indonesian ISPs found that pornographic content, which is illegal under the country’s 2008 Anti-Pornography Law, is heavily filtered. Testing also revealed that Internet filtering across ISPs is unsystematic and inconsistent, with some ISPs blocking more than others and targeting a wider range of content such as anonymizer and circumvention Web sites, and Web sites containing controversial political or religious content. In 2011, smartphone maker BlackBerry began censoring pornographic content on their networks in the country following demands by the Indonesian government. This research on content controls will be guided by the following questions: What content controls are applied in Indonesia? How are those content controls implemented or carried out? What do network measurements of Internet accessibility reveal about the scope, scale, and character of information controls in Indonesia? What restrictions are placed on free expression, both off and online, in Indonesia? What steps have civil society groups taken in response? What Internet users, if any, have been targeted for arrest and on what grounds? Surveillance and Control: Surveillance is one of the most effective, if less obvious, forms of information control. Governments and private companies engage in surveillance for a wide range of reasons, many of them beneficial for society. For example, surveillance is an essential component of government responses to health crises and natural emergencies, and is a critical component of effective large-scale network management and law enforcement. However, surveillance can also be used to target dissidents and undermine privacy. If surveillance is undertaken without proper accountability, it can lead to the abuse of power. Surveillance of the Internet and other communications is now a huge growth industry, with many companies supplying governments with passive and targeted surveillance products and services. Past Citizen Lab research has documented the use of surveillance technologies, products, and services in Indonesia. For example, command and control servers for the commercial malware product FinFisher were identified on the Indonesian ISPs PT Telkom, PT Matrixnet Global and Biznet, as were devices which can be used for filtering and surveillance manufactured by the US-headquartered Blue Coat Systems. Indonesia’s Ministry of Defence recently signed a USD 6.7 million contract with Gamma TSE to provide undisclosed “wiretapping equipment” for use by the Ministry’s Strategic Intelligence Agency. Gamma TSE is part of the Gamma Group, which includes Gamma Group International, the developer of FinFisher, a “lawful interception” product. Smartphone maker BlackBerry has come under pressure from Indonesian authorities to locate infrastructure within the country as a means of facilitating surveillance of users, although it is not clear what, if any, arrangements have been made between the company and the Indonesian government. Our post will examine the following questions: What type of surveillance is undertaken by Indonesian authorities? What oversight and accountability is associated with that monitoring? What range of equipment, products, services, etc., does Indonesia use to implement surveillance? And how is that surveillance targeted? Have any special security and surveillance measures been taken for the IGF? What type of surveillance, if any, exists at the venue and for what purpose? IGF Controls: Major global events like the IGF are often a significant focus of international attention and can have important political, economic and social consequences for host countries. Information controls are customarily loosened during the hosting of the IGF event — particularly at the venue itself. At the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, for example, unfettered access was provided within the conference venue, while filtering remained elsewhere in the country. Citizen Lab staff and associates have participated in every IGF since the first meeting was held in Athens in 2006, (as well as the WSIS meetings that preceded it in 2003 and 2005). At the 2005 WSIS meeting in Tunis, Citizen Lab researcher Nart Villeneuve’s presentation on Internet filtering was disrupted by Tunisian authorities and nearly cancelled. Our participation in the 2009 IGF in Egypt included having our book launch for the OpenNet Initiative’s Access Controlled disrupted by United Nations’ officials, following complaints by representatives for the government of China concerning our reference to Tibet and the Great Firewall of China in our published material. Our last post will focus on the dynamics surrounding the IGF itself: What are the interests of the various Indonesian stakeholders (government, private sector, civil society) in hosting the IGF? What do different stakeholders hope to accomplish? Where do these interests clash? What value does the Indonesian government place in the IGF relative to other international forums, such as ICANN, the ITU, or non-cyberspace related forums like APEC and ASEAN ? To what extent have Indonesian stakeholders been able to influence and shape the agenda and outcomes of the IGF? How did they prepare for the meeting, and what were the obstacles to overcome in making it happen (e.g., budgetary issues)? With the IGF underway in Indonesia, what impact does the forum have, if any, on Indonesian information controls and related practices? How does Internet accessibility in the venue of the forum, or in any other area where attendees may congregate (i.e. hotels, Internet cafes, etc.), compare to that which the average Indonesian user experiences? How have the stakeholders in Indonesia organized themselves to organize and host the IGF . What are the political dynamics of the IGF meeting itself? What were the processes to develop the agenda and program for the meeting — e.g., how did the multi-stakeholder advisory committee develop the key topics, agenda, and structures of the IGF? Which stakeholders held which positions, and who had input? What were the outcomes? Footnotes 1 For more background on “just-in-time” content controls, see Masashi Crete-Nishihata and Jillian C. York, “Egypt’s Internet Blackout: Extreme Example of Just-in-time Blocking,” OpenNet Initiative, January 28, 2011,https://opennet.net/blog/2011/01/egypt%E2%80%99s-internet-blackout-extreme-example-just-time-blocking; and Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, “Good for Liberty, Bad for Security? Global Civil Society and the Securitization of the Internet,” in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, eds. Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2008), http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accessdenied-chapter-6.pdf. 2 Russia’s Surveillance State, a joint project between Citizen Lab, Agentura.Ru and Privacy International, has documented the growth of surveillance measures in preparation for the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. See Irina Borogan and Andrei Soldatov, “Surveillance at the Sochi Olympics 2014,” Agentura.ru, October 2013, http://www.agentura.ru/english/projects/Project_ID/sochi. 3 The Cyber Stewards program Cyber Stewards is a global network of organizations and individuals that use evidenced-based research for policy advocacy to ensure and promote a secure and open Internet. We are building bridges between researchers and activists in the global North and South to form a space of peers for collaboration and organization at local, regional, and international levels. 4 Mariel Grazella, “ICT Businesses to Tackle Policy at Global Internet Forum,” The Jakata Post, March 02, 2013, available athttp://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/03/02/ict-businesses-tackle-policy-global-forum-bali.html. 5 The OpenNet Initiative is a collaborative partnership of three institutions: the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and the SecDev Group (Ottawa). 6 See Masashi Crete-Nishihata, Ronald J. Deibert, and Adam Senft, “Not by Technical Means Alone: The Multidisciplinary Challenge of Studying Information Controls,” IEEE Internet Computing 17.3 (2013): 34-41. Ronald Deibert Director, the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto (416) 946-8916 PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab r.deibert at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 19:44:29 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:44:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > >> > [ST]: McTim I hear what you are saying. Your view does not in anyway >> > represent your country and I agree and it will be noted and recorded. It >> > is >> > just to help us know where you are based physically. >> >> Why is that a useful metric? > > > A possible answer could be fo instance to have some statistics about the > attendance but I'm not attending! from developing countries civil society > where the cost of such traveling is hardly supported by universities of > Civil Socity Organizations without > some type of international mechanism (which did occur more frequently during > the WSIS and tend to > disappear now leaving a potential balance problem which should be tracked). > Another possible answer could be linked to linguistic diversity. > > It is indeed a good practice for any international meeting to have at hand > statistics on different factors > which need to be tracked (geographical presence, gender presence...etc). > Dont you agree that equitable balance in some key factors is a worthwile > objective? If I had registered, I would have given my nation of origin at registration, but since I am not there, I didn't give anyone permission to use this data. What if every single comment were to be discounted or weighted more because they came from a certain geography? We are talking in this case about ideas (objections or reservations or support of them) So in this case, no. I want a meritocracy, where ideas stand or fall based on how good they are, not their origin. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 19:57:09 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:57:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] Yesterday Update from Bali - Pre- IGF 21 October, 2013 Message-ID: *Update from Bali – Pre- IGF* This year’s Pre-Internet Governance Forum which was held yesterday set the tone for this week. Today is Day 1 of the IGF! It’s finally here!!! Yesterday was like a barometer testing how stakeholders generally would be engaging in the discussions and dialogue on the diverse issues on Internet Governance. Remote participation is available over IPv6! :) *About Indonesia* It was also great to hear the CTO of Telecom Indonesia give a general update on ICT and the Internet in Indonesia. By the way Indonesia is also the world’s second largest biodiversity and the fourth largest country on the earth being home for 250, 588, 688 people. If you are curious about their resource allocations visit: http://bgp.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html In 2011, Indonesia ranked 95 on the ICT Development Index, see: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf *IGF Schedule* * * To see today’s Schedule, visit: http://igf2013.or.id/schedule/** * * *Snippets from Yesterday* * * *High Level Leaders Meeting* It was a great meeting for testing the mercury levels of how institutions were feeling about Internet Governance. There seemed to be consensus that there needs to be improvement when it comes to Internet Governance. The meeting was hosted by the Indonesian Government where representatives of public sector, civil society and private sector were invited. *What I Heard* * * *[There were many speakers but am picking that which stood out]* The nature of improvement is at this stage ambiguous except for the Japanese Government making calls for increased functionality of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) within ICANN. Brazil’s Government representative wants more democracy on the Internet and advised the delegates that they would be hosting and Internet Governance meeting in Brazil next year. There was overwhelming consensus by governments that cyber security is critical in the wake of vulnerabilities and threats. The US Government representative pointed out those unlawful non state activities that threaten the Internet should be addressed. The Chinese Government advocated social and economic rights. APNIC CEO Paul Wilson, Chair of the Number Registry Organisation (NRO) and MAG member emphasized the need to rebuild trust and leaders to collaborate and have aggressive cooperation. Citizen’s Lab advised that there should be caution in terms of the reaction of stakeholders to recent revelations by Edward Snowden and the threats of excessive regulation by governments. Google representative said that Surveillance was nothing new and done by all and not just the US government. Jovan Kurbalija, Director of Diplo Foundation said, “Make no mistake, Internet Governance is in crisis”. Kurbalija suggested that there are challenges and there needs to be change and empathy. *What I Observed [How I interpreted what they were saying]* I won’t go into all of the speakers but just some key snippets that in my view helps set the tone and context for the IGF this year. *US* When the US government made comments about unlawful activity by non-state actors which in my view canvasses stakeholders within the private sector such as when Google had to pay $22.5million in fines for Safari tracking. The US government has to be commended for having machinery that allows for redress when it comes to corporate surveillance. However not countries have policies and laws that enable regulators to address breaches. Google has come under fire by Australian Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand Police – Cyber Crime Unit. There are other commercial stakeholders who exploit big data for commercial purposes. VeriSign reports in its recent quarterly update that Transparency Market Research highlighted that Global Big Data market was worth USD $6.3 billion in 2012 and is expected to reach USD $48.3 billion by 2018, at a compound annual growth rate of 40.5 percent from 2012 to 2018. I would have preferred if the US Government representative sat next to other country representatives rather than ICANN and ISOC CEO to be less clique and more global. In diplomacy, even seating arrangements speaks volume. *China* They are probably relieved to have the spotlight on government surveillance shift from them to the US (tongue in cheek). They highlighted social and economic aspects of human rights over the internet. To me this is diplomatic speak for increase in access and empowering communities to build stronger IP backbones and would include things like culture such as multilingualism and diversity on the Internet in forms of expression as well as through Internationalized Domain Names. * * *Japan* The suggestion to increase GAC functionality is a cry for more robust representation from governments into the policy processes. Indirectly they were saying that they are happy to have institutions carry on with their administration functions except to instill incremental changes. *Brazil* I am assuming that Brazil wants increased participation and to have forums more democratic. It remains unclear whether they are referring to administration or meaningful participation from other nation states and stakeholders in the coordinating bodies. It is helpful to separate this core issue from the other notion that they alluded to in their speech and increasing local Internet Exchange points to avoid local traffic getting routed offshore and being exposed. From an end user perspective having local IXPs have a direct correlation to greater room for increasing local content, lower costs and increasing infrastructure which is in sync with building a vibrant and open internet community. * * *Civil Society*** It would be great for the two speakers from civil society to have invited comments from the rest of civil society as they were developing their speeches. Whilst they identified the security and vulnerabilities, I felt that they could have done more to clearly and concisely highlight the solutions. Throughout this week as, civil society engages in the various workshops, it is critical that we not only raise the issues and vulnerabilities but also suggest solutions. Today, the IGC is meeting during lunch hour where we will discuss a few things, one of which is how we can coordinate civil society input into workshops aside from administrative matters. For those who wish to skype into the session let us know by emailing: coordinators at igcaucus.org * * *GigaNet* Apparently for much of the day, there was standing room only. I attended two sessions at the Giganet where a Panelist presented a Study on Transferring Blocks and Routing Information. The other session that I attended was on Surveillance and Snowden. *Final Thoughts and Wish List*** I am personally not worried about the future of the Internet Governance. However, I feel that we need to create a culture where we can openly discuss concerns without retreating into our caves. I find that in the 8thInternet Governance stakeholders need to zero into the core critical issues rather than skirting superficially over the issues. For me, my list is clear: 1. Meaningful participation: a. In Policy processes, representations into various administration b. Capacity Building c. Multilingualism – Freedom of Expression, IDNs 2. Strengthening Integrity of National and Global Standards bodies and building trust in light of the following situations a. Patenting things which are RFCs eg. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ b. Compromised Algorithms http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101013 (I have been told that the issue was not the standard but the implementation of the standard) 3. Increasing Accountability and Transparency in the way things are governed and administered both on a global, regional and national scale. 4. Deliberate and Conscious Strategic Engagement on Shifting Away from Territorialism of Actors and stakeholders in Internet Governance to aggressive collaboration, coordination of resources and energy to create a robust and open internet. 5. Pursue dialogue using the Internet Governance Human Rights principles as a base for complex policy discussions. 6. Bug the MAG to arrange for a sports side event where people can just learn to relax and disagree on certain issues and not take it personally where constituencies become insulated instead of porous. *What is your wish list?* * * * * *Social Media* As per Anriette’s email: For everything: #IGF2013 Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS Internet Governance Principles: #IGP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Mon Oct 21 20:06:19 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:06:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > A possible answer could be fo instance to have some statistics about the > > attendance >But I'm not attending! Ok Mc Tim ;-).... You got a point! >If I had registered, I would have given my nation of origin at >registration, but since I am not there, I didn't give anyone >permission to use this data. I understand and agree with you. BTW I am not attending neither :-). -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 20:08:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:08:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To keep the peace :) I will remove the countries -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 21 20:31:29 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:31:29 +1100 Subject: [governance] Yesterday Update from Bali - Pre- IGF 21 October, 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0BEE7E4B34AF4692BDC627EFEC901C12@Toshiba> Just a couple more personal observations from HLLM yesterday UK subtle use of word “proportionate” in their speech was interesting Fadi Chehade initially took the stage with a slide showing him as CEO of the” International Cesearean Network” (another ICANN I guess). Interesting freudian slip for someone contemplating the changes he is. Widespread applause when Citizen Lab introduced the E word – Edward Snowden. Excellent speech by Anja Kovacs. Particularly liked her compelling argument that surveillance actually works counter to security. Ian Peter From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Yesterday Update from Bali - Pre- IGF 21 October, 2013 Update from Bali – Pre- IGF This year’s Pre-Internet Governance Forum which was held yesterday set the tone for this week. Today is Day 1 of the IGF! It’s finally here!!! Yesterday was like a barometer testing how stakeholders generally would be engaging in the discussions and dialogue on the diverse issues on Internet Governance. Remote participation is available over IPv6! :) About Indonesia It was also great to hear the CTO of Telecom Indonesia give a general update on ICT and the Internet in Indonesia. By the way Indonesia is also the world’s second largest biodiversity and the fourth largest country on the earth being home for 250, 588, 688 people. If you are curious about their resource allocations visit: http://bgp.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html In 2011, Indonesia ranked 95 on the ICT Development Index, see: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf IGF Schedule To see today’s Schedule, visit: http://igf2013.or.id/schedule/ Snippets from Yesterday High Level Leaders Meeting It was a great meeting for testing the mercury levels of how institutions were feeling about Internet Governance. There seemed to be consensus that there needs to be improvement when it comes to Internet Governance. The meeting was hosted by the Indonesian Government where representatives of public sector, civil society and private sector were invited. What I Heard [There were many speakers but am picking that which stood out] The nature of improvement is at this stage ambiguous except for the Japanese Government making calls for increased functionality of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) within ICANN. Brazil’s Government representative wants more democracy on the Internet and advised the delegates that they would be hosting and Internet Governance meeting in Brazil next year. There was overwhelming consensus by governments that cyber security is critical in the wake of vulnerabilities and threats. The US Government representative pointed out those unlawful non state activities that threaten the Internet should be addressed. The Chinese Government advocated social and economic rights. APNIC CEO Paul Wilson, Chair of the Number Registry Organisation (NRO) and MAG member emphasized the need to rebuild trust and leaders to collaborate and have aggressive cooperation. Citizen’s Lab advised that there should be caution in terms of the reaction of stakeholders to recent revelations by Edward Snowden and the threats of excessive regulation by governments. Google representative said that Surveillance was nothing new and done by all and not just the US government. Jovan Kurbalija, Director of Diplo Foundation said, “Make no mistake, Internet Governance is in crisis”. Kurbalija suggested that there are challenges and there needs to be change and empathy. What I Observed [How I interpreted what they were saying] I won’t go into all of the speakers but just some key snippets that in my view helps set the tone and context for the IGF this year. US When the US government made comments about unlawful activity by non-state actors which in my view canvasses stakeholders within the private sector such as when Google had to pay $22.5million in fines for Safari tracking. The US government has to be commended for having machinery that allows for redress when it comes to corporate surveillance. However not countries have policies and laws that enable regulators to address breaches. Google has come under fire by Australian Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand Police – Cyber Crime Unit. There are other commercial stakeholders who exploit big data for commercial purposes. VeriSign reports in its recent quarterly update that Transparency Market Research highlighted that Global Big Data market was worth USD $6.3 billion in 2012 and is expected to reach USD $48.3 billion by 2018, at a compound annual growth rate of 40.5 percent from 2012 to 2018. I would have preferred if the US Government representative sat next to other country representatives rather than ICANN and ISOC CEO to be less clique and more global. In diplomacy, even seating arrangements speaks volume. China They are probably relieved to have the spotlight on government surveillance shift from them to the US (tongue in cheek). They highlighted social and economic aspects of human rights over the internet. To me this is diplomatic speak for increase in access and empowering communities to build stronger IP backbones and would include things like culture such as multilingualism and diversity on the Internet in forms of expression as well as through Internationalized Domain Names. Japan The suggestion to increase GAC functionality is a cry for more robust representation from governments into the policy processes. Indirectly they were saying that they are happy to have institutions carry on with their administration functions except to instill incremental changes. Brazil I am assuming that Brazil wants increased participation and to have forums more democratic. It remains unclear whether they are referring to administration or meaningful participation from other nation states and stakeholders in the coordinating bodies. It is helpful to separate this core issue from the other notion that they alluded to in their speech and increasing local Internet Exchange points to avoid local traffic getting routed offshore and being exposed. From an end user perspective having local IXPs have a direct correlation to greater room for increasing local content, lower costs and increasing infrastructure which is in sync with building a vibrant and open internet community. Civil Society It would be great for the two speakers from civil society to have invited comments from the rest of civil society as they were developing their speeches. Whilst they identified the security and vulnerabilities, I felt that they could have done more to clearly and concisely highlight the solutions. Throughout this week as, civil society engages in the various workshops, it is critical that we not only raise the issues and vulnerabilities but also suggest solutions. Today, the IGC is meeting during lunch hour where we will discuss a few things, one of which is how we can coordinate civil society input into workshops aside from administrative matters. For those who wish to skype into the session let us know by emailing: coordinators at igcaucus.org GigaNet Apparently for much of the day, there was standing room only. I attended two sessions at the Giganet where a Panelist presented a Study on Transferring Blocks and Routing Information. The other session that I attended was on Surveillance and Snowden. Final Thoughts and Wish List I am personally not worried about the future of the Internet Governance. However, I feel that we need to create a culture where we can openly discuss concerns without retreating into our caves. I find that in the 8th Internet Governance stakeholders need to zero into the core critical issues rather than skirting superficially over the issues. For me, my list is clear: 1. Meaningful participation: a. In Policy processes, representations into various administration b. Capacity Building c. Multilingualism – Freedom of Expression, IDNs 2. Strengthening Integrity of National and Global Standards bodies and building trust in light of the following situations a. Patenting things which are RFCs eg. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/ b. Compromised Algorithms http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101013 (I have been told that the issue was not the standard but the implementation of the standard) 3. Increasing Accountability and Transparency in the way things are governed and administered both on a global, regional and national scale. 4. Deliberate and Conscious Strategic Engagement on Shifting Away from Territorialism of Actors and stakeholders in Internet Governance to aggressive collaboration, coordination of resources and energy to create a robust and open internet. 5. Pursue dialogue using the Internet Governance Human Rights principles as a base for complex policy discussions. 6. Bug the MAG to arrange for a sports side event where people can just learn to relax and disagree on certain issues and not take it personally where constituencies become insulated instead of porous. What is your wish list? Social Media As per Anriette’s email: For everything: #IGF2013 Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS Internet Governance Principles: #IGP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 20:55:15 2013 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:55:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] The Bolt/BTLJ - "Internet Governance in the Age of Surveillance" Message-ID: Dear colleagues, My piece of contribution to the debate. I published a blog on The Bolt / Berkeley Technology Law Journal's. It recaps the Internet Governance negotiations at the International Telecommunication Union/UN, the structured online mobilization against WCIT-12, and draws an IG scenario after Snowden. I tried to demonstrate some UN, ICANN, US moves that are being formed and that have 2014 as a milestone. I would be glad if you could share it. I'm also available for any comments. *"Internet Governance in the Age of Surveillance"* http://btlj.org/2013/10/21/internet-governance-in-the-age-of-surveillance/ Regards, Sergio Regards, Sérgio Alves Jr. 2014 LLM Candidate, IP and Technology UC Berkeley Law School 510 646 7080 sergio.alves at berkeley.edu -- Abraços, Sérgio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Oct 21 20:53:07 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:53:07 +0800 Subject: [governance] Yesterday Update from Bali - Pre- IGF 21 October, 2013 In-Reply-To: <0BEE7E4B34AF4692BDC627EFEC901C12@Toshiba> References: <0BEE7E4B34AF4692BDC627EFEC901C12@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20131022005305.GA28665@tarvainen.info> On Oct 22 11:31, Ian Peter (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > Fadi Chehade initially took the stage with a slide showing him as > CEO of the” International Cesearean Network” (another ICANN I > guess). Yeah, If someone managed to take a photo of that slide, please share! (Lots of typos in various materials here, including people's names - I guess someone tasked with making the slides googled "ICAN".) > Interesting freudian slip for someone contemplating the > changes he is. :-) -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Oct 21 21:23:14 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:23:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] SOCIAL MEDIA - #IGF2013 In-Reply-To: References: <526558B2.9030600@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you Anriette. This is helpful. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 22 October 2013 06:05, Antonio Medina Gómez wrote: > Thanks...very good > Antonio Medina > > > 2013/10/21 CAPDA CAPDA > >> Hi Anriette, >> >> Good job, beautiful >> >> Best >> >> >> 2013/10/21 Anriette Esterhuysen >> >>> hi all >>> >>> from IGF secretariat - hashtags for 2013 IGF >>> >>> anriette >>> >>> >>> All, >>> >>> During all of the main/focus sessions, please take some time/make a >>> short announcement about using the following hash-tags so that we can best >>> capture the social media activity during these sessions - we'll also inform >>> all of the workshop organizers to use these as well .. >>> >>> For everything: #IGF2013 >>> >>> Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D >>> >>> Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR >>> >>> Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC >>> >>> Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS >>> >>> Internet Governance Principles: #IGP >>> >>> Of course everyone is welcome to use other hash tags and they will, but >>> this will help us capture the messages coming from social media in a much >>> more organized way, and to allow everyone around the world following >>> remotely to follow the proceedings in an easier way - most important is to >>> announce at the beginning of each session to remember to use >>> #igf2013/#IGF2013 prior to doing anything on social media ... >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* >> Coordinateur Général >> >> Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile >> (ACSIS) >> >> *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * >> >> - *FGI du 22 au 25 Octobre 2013* à Bali, Indonésie >> - *ICANN48 du 17 au 21 Novembre* à Buenos Aires, Argentine >> - *ITU TELECOM WORLD du 19 au 22 Novembre 2013* Bangkok, Thailande >> >> CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le >> Développement de l'Afrique) >> >> BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN >> >> Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 >> >> Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr >> >> Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 21:47:39 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:47:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Bolt/BTLJ - "Internet Governance in the Age of Surveillance" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very good background document, thanks! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel- On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Sérgio Alves Jr. wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > My piece of contribution to the debate. > > I published a blog on The Bolt / Berkeley Technology Law Journal's. > > It recaps the Internet Governance negotiations at the International > Telecommunication Union/UN, the structured online mobilization against > WCIT-12, and draws an IG scenario after Snowden. I tried to demonstrate some > UN, ICANN, US moves that are being formed and that have 2014 as a milestone. > > I would be glad if you could share it. > > I'm also available for any comments. > > "Internet Governance in the Age of Surveillance" > http://btlj.org/2013/10/21/internet-governance-in-the-age-of-surveillance/ > > > Regards, > Sergio > > > Regards, > > Sérgio Alves Jr. > 2014 LLM Candidate, IP and Technology > UC Berkeley Law School > 510 646 7080 > sergio.alves at berkeley.edu > > -- > Abraços, > Sérgio > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 22:14:09 2013 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:14:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] The Bolt/BTLJ - "Internet Governance in the Age of Surveillance" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, McTim. It's up to the people at IGF to make it outdated. :) Regards, Sergio On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM, McTim wrote: > Very good background document, thanks! > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel- > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Sérgio Alves Jr. > wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > My piece of contribution to the debate. > > > > I published a blog on The Bolt / Berkeley Technology Law Journal's. > > > > It recaps the Internet Governance negotiations at the International > > Telecommunication Union/UN, the structured online mobilization against > > WCIT-12, and draws an IG scenario after Snowden. I tried to demonstrate > some > > UN, ICANN, US moves that are being formed and that have 2014 as a > milestone. > > > > I would be glad if you could share it. > > > > I'm also available for any comments. > > > > "Internet Governance in the Age of Surveillance" > > > http://btlj.org/2013/10/21/internet-governance-in-the-age-of-surveillance/ > > > > > > Regards, > > Sergio > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Sérgio Alves Jr. > > 2014 LLM Candidate, IP and Technology > > UC Berkeley Law School > > 510 646 7080 > > sergio.alves at berkeley.edu > > > > -- > > Abraços, > > Sérgio > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Abraços, Sérgio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Oct 21 22:31:10 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:31:10 +0800 Subject: [governance] Yesterday Update from Bali - Pre- IGF 21 October, 2013 In-Reply-To: <20131022005305.GA28665@tarvainen.info> References: <0BEE7E4B34AF4692BDC627EFEC901C12@Toshiba> <20131022005305.GA28665@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <916DCE5F-FF1D-4EF6-83DA-9571F593F668@uzh.ch> On Oct 22, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Oct 22 11:31, Ian Peter (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > >> Fadi Chehade initially took the stage with a slide showing him as >> CEO of the” International Cesearean Network” (another ICANN I >> guess). > > Yeah, If someone managed to take a photo of that slide, please share! > > (Lots of typos in various materials here, including people's names - > I guess someone tasked with making the slides googled "ICAN".) And to complete the experience, there's also a restaurant at the Westin named Ikan. > >> Interesting freudian slip for someone contemplating the >> changes he is. > > :-) > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wbenhassine at gmail.com Mon Oct 21 22:32:06 2013 From: wbenhassine at gmail.com (Wafa Ben Hassine) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:32:06 -0600 Subject: [governance] SOCIAL MEDIA - #IGF2013 In-Reply-To: References: <526558B2.9030600@apc.org> Message-ID: Thank you! On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Kivuva wrote: > Thank you Anriette. This is helpful. > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva > twitter.com/lordmwesh > google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh > > > On 22 October 2013 06:05, Antonio Medina Gómez wrote: > >> Thanks...very good >> Antonio Medina >> >> >> 2013/10/21 CAPDA CAPDA >> >>> Hi Anriette, >>> >>> Good job, beautiful >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> 2013/10/21 Anriette Esterhuysen >>> >>>> hi all >>>> >>>> from IGF secretariat - hashtags for 2013 IGF >>>> >>>> anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> During all of the main/focus sessions, please take some time/make a >>>> short announcement about using the following hash-tags so that we can best >>>> capture the social media activity during these sessions - we'll also inform >>>> all of the workshop organizers to use these as well .. >>>> >>>> For everything: #IGF2013 >>>> >>>> Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D >>>> >>>> Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR >>>> >>>> Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC >>>> >>>> Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS >>>> >>>> Internet Governance Principles: #IGP >>>> >>>> Of course everyone is welcome to use other hash tags and they will, but >>>> this will help us capture the messages coming from social media in a much >>>> more organized way, and to allow everyone around the world following >>>> remotely to follow the proceedings in an easier way - most important is to >>>> announce at the beginning of each session to remember to use >>>> #igf2013/#IGF2013 prior to doing anything on social media ... >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* >>> Coordinateur Général >>> >>> Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société >>> Civile (ACSIS) >>> >>> *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * >>> >>> - *FGI du 22 au 25 Octobre 2013* à Bali, Indonésie >>> - *ICANN48 du 17 au 21 Novembre* à Buenos Aires, Argentine >>> - *ITU TELECOM WORLD du 19 au 22 Novembre 2013* Bangkok, Thailande >>> >>> CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le >>> Développement de l'Afrique) >>> >>> BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN >>> >>> Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 >>> >>> >>> Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr >>> >>> Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Wafa Ben Hassine J.D. Candidate 2015 University of Denver Sturm College of Law p: +1 720 412 5216 email | twitter | blog *Think Green* - Please consider the planet before printing this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Mon Oct 21 23:08:22 2013 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?Windows-1252?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:08:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] Yesterday Update from Bali - Pre- IGF 21 October, 2013 In-Reply-To: <916DCE5F-FF1D-4EF6-83DA-9571F593F668@uzh.ch> References: <0BEE7E4B34AF4692BDC627EFEC901C12@Toshiba> <20131022005305.GA28665@tarvainen.info>,<916DCE5F-FF1D-4EF6-83DA-9571F593F668@uzh.ch> Message-ID: > From: william.drake at uzh.ch > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:31:10 +0800 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Yesterday Update from Bali - Pre- IGF 21 October, 2013 > > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > > On Oct 22 11:31, Ian Peter (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > > > >> Fadi Chehade initially took the stage with a slide showing him as > >> CEO of the” International Cesearean Network” (another ICANN I > >> guess). > > > > Yeah, If someone managed to take a photo of that slide, please share! > > > > (Lots of typos in various materials here, including people's names - > > I guess someone tasked with making the slides googled "ICAN".) > > And to complete the experience, there's also a restaurant at the Westin named Ikan. IKAN = "fish" in Bahasa Indonesia > > > >> Interesting freudian slip for someone contemplating the > >> changes he is. > > > > :-) > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 22 00:14:16 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:14:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: [bestbits] Readout on meeting with technical community Message-ID: <20131022061416.5e03d967@swan.bollow.ch> Forwarding from BestBits list... Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:58:45 -0200 Von: "Carlos A. Afonso" An: Mawaki Chango , Best Bits Betreff: Re: [bestbits] Readout on meeting with technical community Very good points, Mawaki -- shows you are closely following and understanding this delicate and complex process. Dilma today in her official twitter reinforced very clearly the goals she defends for IG and for the meeting. The main tweets of today on this, in my translation (Portuguese below): [1] @dilmabr twitted: "Brazil defends an open, democratic and participative Internet." [2] Pres.Dilma Rousseff tweets in favor of "net neutrality without ...restrictions of any nature except technical and ethical criteria" [3] Dilma Rousseff: [in favor of] the multistakeholder model, as we already follow in Brazil. [4] President Dilma Rousseff: "we want IG with participation of govs, priv.sector and, *above all*, civil society." In PT-BR: [1] Dilma Rousseff ‏@dilmabr O Brasil defende uma internet aberta, democrática e participativa. [2] Dilma Rousseff ‏@dilmabr Defendemos neutralidade da internet. Respeito critérios técnicos e éticos. Sem restrições políticas, comerciais, religiosas, de qq natureza [3] Dilma Rousseff ‏@dilmabr O modelo chamado “multistakeholder”, como já fazemos no Brasil. [4] Dilma Rousseff ‏@dilmabr Defendemos governança da internet envolvendo governos, setor privado e, sobretudo, sociedade civil. I think the speech at the High Level Meeting today by Brazil's minister of communications reinforced this vision. Quite a surprise, considering his opposite attitude on these views until very recently. Do people still think the Brazil meeting will be "only Icann", or "led by Icann", or will not seriously deal with these crucial issues? Our main task as civil society organizations is organize ourselves to try and build consensus to get deeply involved in the preparation of the meeting. We ought to have a strong presence throughout the process, to make good on Dilma's view that "we want IG with participation of govs, priv.sector and, *above all*, civil society." I tried to convince people of the "i*" group of the same, and I think this is their consensus as well. fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/20/2013 11:47 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I agree that there's no reason for us to proceed as if petitioning > ICANN for acceptance of our claims to representation. After all, > regardless of whose idea it was initially, Brazil is the sovereign > that will host the summit and it has a track record for being > inclusive of CS in this subject matter (and I understand it will be a > world summit, so not in anyone's ownership, really.) For now we > should mainly ask questions to understand where ICANN is coming down > on the issues of the day as well as where the idea/rule of national > delegations to be 3-person strong each comes from in order to decide > how we can get it changed. > > It's important to watch closely the Brazil side of the game, keeping > in mind the political dance that might be happening between the > Presidency and the Ministry. > > mawaki > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder and CEO, DIGILEXIS Consulting > ICT Policy & Regulations | Knowledge Management | ICT4D | Digital > Records & Identity Management > www.digilexis.com > m.chango at digilexis.com > Skype: mc_digilexis > Mobile: +225 4448 7764 > @mawakiDIGILEXIS > @digilexis > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Andrew Puddephatt > > wrote: > > Thanks for the very clear notes Jochai > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 21 Oct 2013, at 00:39, "Jochai Ben-Avie" > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> On 10/20/13 members of Best Bits were invited to meet with >> several members of the technical community. There were about 25 >> people in attendance, including the CEO of every I* organization >> except for IETF and the IAB. The first part of the meeting was a >> discussion of what the technical community is thinking after the >> Montevideo meeting (as well as some of the motivations that lead to >> that statement). The end of the meeting was a download from Fadi >> Chehade (the CEO of ICANN) on his meetings with Dilma and other >> Brazilian government officials. The meeting took place under >> Chatham House rules, so statements and information in the notes >> below are not attributed to any individual with the exception of >> Fadi’s comments, which are public. >> >> Civil society members in attendance were Valeria Betancourt >> (APC), Carlos Afonso (Instituto NUPEF), Emma Llanso (CDT), and Jochai >> Ben-Avie (Access). >> >> What follows are the collected notes from Valeria, Emma, and >> myself which are intended to serve as a readout of what was >> discussed with minimal commentary. Please note the immediate next >> steps at the bottom of this email. >> >> *1. Background and motivations behind the Montevideo Meeting and >> Statement* >> -Keep the internet open and seamless >> -Build and regain trust and confidence in internet governance and >> management >> -Strengthen the multistakeholder approach >> -Globalize the IANA function and ICANN >> -Identify gaps on what they are doing and build common >> understanding of issues and problems >> -Share perspectives on the situation and the future >> >> Overall, the statement is a reaction or response to the “tectonic >> shift in the internet governance landscape” after the revelations >> of systematic mass surveillance. >> >> *2. Possible paths forward from Montevideo * >> -Build, expand, and enhance the loose coalition pushing for open, >> decentralized, participatory governance processes >> -Engage in a grassroots campaign >> -Leverage upcoming events within the I* organizations, but >> particularly the Brazil Summit >> -Build on thought leadership >> -Establish taskforces (e.g., within the IGF, IETF, ICANN, RIRs, >> and CSTD) >> >> *3. Major points in the discussion* >> - How has the goal of an open, interoperable, reliable internet >> changed in the last 10 years? What needs to be changed at this >> point? What should be the focus of the international debate? Need >> to be more nuanced when framing the change we/they want to >> produce >> - What is the next step for IANA? (No one really seemed to know >> how they can/should actually change the IANA contract) >> - Identify gaps and holes and to develop mechanisms to >> address/fill them in a decentralized multistakeholder way (while >> ICANN is probably not the place for a number of “orphan issues” >> they are getting a lot of pressure to take these issues on and >> believe that they could be useful in identifying (in a >> multistakeholder fashion) processes for working on these issues >> -There was a sense that if multistakeholder institutions don’t >> develop to take on the “orphan issues” governments will step in >> to take control. As such, there is a real need to take control of the >> narrative, which is slipping out of their control. To this end, >> there is a need to disaggregate discussions and identify a >> taxonomy of areas/problems/issues and agree on ways to address >> them collectively. Moreover, shying away from issues is not >> helping the technical community. It should be leading in putting >> the multistakeholder approach in practice and contributing to >> building confidence and trust. >> -There was a suggestion that new institutions in the model of >> ICANN could be created to deal with issues that are outside of >> ICANN’s mandate >> - How do we evolve the visibility of the MS approach? >> -I* orgs have a big local footprint but need to do better to >> leverage that globally >> - There was a sense that the label “technical community” does a >> disservice to these organizations as they inform and do a lot of >> policy work too. >> >> *4. Brazil summit* >> According to Fadi, after Dilma’s speech, many middle governments >> saw themselves represented in her speech and expressed an >> interest in a new approach that isn’t defined by Western governments >> or the Russias and Chinas of the world. After Montevideo, Fadi >> decided to fly to Brasilia to talk to her about it. It took him 4 >> days to get a meeting with Dilma as he was being blocked by Paulo >> Bernardo (the Brazilian Minister of Communications); he is also the >> one who has been pushing for a multilateral approach. With the help >> of the CGI.br , Fadi got a meeting with Bernardo who >> eventually agreed to give him a meeting with Dilma. At that >> meeting Bernardo tried to block CGI.br from >> attending, but Fadi convinced Dilma to let Harmut Glaser into the >> meeting. >> >> In the course of the meeting Dilma asked what she could do and >> Fadi proposed an idea of a summit. He repeatedly got her to >> commit to making this a multistakeholder (not muitilateral) event, >> specifically including civil society. There is a desire for this >> to be not a Brazil summit or an ICANN summit but a global summit. >> A multistakeholder steering committee is being put together to >> help facilitate. The desire of the Brazilian government to also >> host the IGF in 2015 was also discussed. >> >> The goals of the summit will be to produce blueprints for: >> -Principles for how the digital community should run >> -Institutional framework for internet governance issues and >> mechanisms to deal with them >> -Decision making processes >> >> Fadi said that at this summit “we are not going to expand what >> ICANN does, if anything we need to make it smaller” but there’s a >> need to find a home for these issues. It’s clear that this summit >> is intended to go way beyond naming and numbering and the IANA >> function. >> >> The meeting will take place in Late April or Early May. Inputs >> are tentatively scheduled to be due by March 1, 2014. Bernardo wants >> the summit to take place in Brasilia, but Fadi is pushing Dilma >> to have it in Rio, to avoid too close an association with the >> capital/government. >> >> To ensure multistakeholder and global participation, there is a >> proposal that each country will have three representatives to the >> conference (one each from government, business, and civil >> society) -- to “create a mini CGI in each country.” It was not >> discussed how these people will be selected. Additionally, the heads >> of all the I* organizations and international government >> organizations will be invited. A question was raised about how the >> technical community would be represented, and the response was not >> clear whether technical community reps would be considered for some >> of the national civil society spots, or whether they would be >> represented by the heads-of-organizations representatives. The >> plan is to have 800-900 people present in total, but there will >> be large screens set up to facilitate remote participation from >> stakeholders and users from around the world. These details will >> be announced in 2-3 weeks in Brasilia, but Paulo Bernardo will >> also make some comments on Tuesday morning at the IGF. >> >> There is a need to flesh out the dynamics of the organization of >> the summit and that certainly seems to be fluid at this point. >> The steering committee will have 4-5 governments on it (Dilma is >> interested in having Germany and India involved in particular), >> members of the I* orgs, civil society reps, and others. Dilma >> also personally called Bernardo, Anatel, and CGI.br >> and told them to go to IGF to gather inputs/thinking on the Brazil >> summit. >> >> There are several strategy panels within ICANN. 4 have already >> been announced, and the fifth one is planned on global internet >> collaboration and governance. Eventual/planned members include: >> Vint Cerf, Ida Holz, Toomas Ilves (President of Estonia), Nitin >> Desain, among others. Fadi is willing to “release” this panel >> from ICANN if it will help the summit process. >> >> *5. Immediate next steps* >> 1) There will be a meeting on Wednesday (time TBA) of the I* >> orgs, members of civil society, the Brazilian delegation (Fadi to >> invite, not yet confirmed), and others. Theresa Swinehart is >> coordinating the meeting and we should let her know who we want >> to have involved. >> 2) Brazilian civil society will be meeting with the Brazilian >> delegation to get more information (not filtered through Fadi) >> 3) We need to arrange a time for Fadi to meet with Best Bits >> representatives and determine who should be at that meeting. >> 4) Determine the civil society strategy for the summit. This >> should be expressed in some talking points for those who are >> going to the meeting on Wednesday and in a letter from civil society >> to Dilma. There is a meeting tentatively scheduled for 4PM tomorrow >> to continue this conversation. Time and location to be confirmed. >> >> >> -- >> >> Jochai Ben-Avie >> Policy Director >> Access | accessnow.org >> >> tel: +1-347-806-9531 >> PGP: 0x9E6D805F >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 22 00:24:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:54:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <00a101ceced6$d3c661c0$7b532540$@gmail.com> References: <991C7C0D-DEFA-491B-9396-BFF55CEC5F02@gmail.com> <51847BD3-6BD3-42E6-B9BC-926669B02F24@uzh.ch> <00a101ceced6$d3c661c0$7b532540$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> As I sit in the 'role of govs' main session, I see no reason really why three people in 'positions' here - panel or as moderators - from civil society - one speaker and two moderators, should all be from developed countries.... I did put that question at the MAG open consultations in Paris earlier this year - about domination of speakers from developed countries, but nothing much seems to change... In front of me on the panel, apart from the MAG Chair, three people from developed countries, one Indian who is AT & T employee, which I take to be his primary 'interest representation' , and just one person from developing countries, and two moderators from developed countries.. Figure, all people from developing countries has still to do a lot of capacity building... I understand a lot of 'IG' money is being poured by developed countries into developing countires, ans so thanks very much... Maybe around 2050, we would have sufficient capacity (and dominant ideology) build up to be given some kind of consideration of equity in global spaces... Meanwhile, to all UN baiters, this would never happen in a UN meeting... /* * //I will keep raising these question, which some take to be embarrassing, because I take it to be my political duty/ /to do so/... and so personal apologies to all involved. parminder On Tuesday 22 October 2013 08:58 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Bill, > > I'm sure that everyone is heartened to hear this but dare I say that > your statement */"I made a conscious effort to stay off the focus > sessions this year and I believe other MAG CS people did too/*" is > precisely the problem. > > What sort of a governance/management process is operative in the > MAG/IGF where the already designated 5 or so members of the "MAG > crowd" have to "make a conscious decision" and show sufficienr > personal forebearance not to occupy all the places in public forums.. > > Surely the issue is that there should be processes in place that > ensure that other voices are brought to the surface as a matter of > course and of effective procedural management., not of sufferance or > beneficence. > > M > > *From:*William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:29 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Cc:* michael gurstein > *Subject:* Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF > Opening ceremony - Nnenna > > Let's try this again from a subscribed account…. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *William Drake > > > *Subject: Re: [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF > Opening ceremony - Nnenna* > > *Date: *October 22, 2013 9:29:28 AM GMT+08:00 > > *To: *michael gurstein > > > *Cc: *"Esterhuysen, Anriette" >, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > , Nnenna > > > Hi Mike > > I'm not subscribed to the two Africa-oriented lists you copied but > feel free to forward this if you like. > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 4:35 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > I must say that I disagree with a public endorsement of the IGF as > "THE" whatever… It may be "THE" something or other but only for lack > of a better alternative. > > Let's agree to disagree on this > > I can't do the reckoning for this IGF (the way the program is set up) > but by my count from the last IGF the (CS and to a slightly lesser > degree for the other stakeholders) presentations in the Workshops and > particularly plenaries consisted to an overwhelming and truly > astonishing degree of the same half dozen CS characters (lets call > them the MAG crowd) over and over again to the point of exhaustion, > likely of them but certainly of anyone wanting to hear any fresh > (and/or critical) perspectives. (Is it the case that a world with > roughly 2 billion Internet users can only turn up a half dozen people > to speak on its behalf at one yearly gabfest after another?) > > Criticizing this year's program based on last year's doesn't seem > entirely fair. I made a conscious effort to stay off the focus > sessions this year and I believe other MAG CS people did too. In > consequence, the numbers don't seem to entirely match what you're saying. > > Opening Ceremonyno MAG CS > > Building Bridges FS: no MAG CS, except the remote moderator, not a > panelist > > IG Principles FSno MAG CS (I dropped out) > > Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation FSNo MAG CS > > Legal and other Frameworks FSNo MAG CS > > Internet as an engine for growth FSNo MAG CS > > > Human rights, freedom of expression FSNo MAG CS > > Taking Stock / Emerging Issues FSNo MAG CS > > Open Microphone Session 1two MAG, not CS though > > Closing Ceremonyno speakers listed but a CS rep TBD > > Workshops may be different, people on the MAG have as much right to > propose something as anyone else. Nevertheless, I believe some of > these were turned down in the MAG review, and given the number of > events I don't think attendees are really left with no choice but to > hear the apparently old stale ideas of people who happen to be on the MAG. > > It would of course be good to have more workshops proposed by > non-usual suspects and I think there was a decent supply of these this > year. But if you think more needs to be done, please get out there > and recruit newbies rather than criticizing previous attendees for > having the temerity to want to do something at the event. > > Cheers > > Bill > > There may be a "dialogue" going on, but if it is a dialogue it is one > that is stretching now over decades rather than (for example bridging > generations, or social or economic divides, or cultural backgrounds > and interests) and one of the reasons that the Brazil initiative is > required and is so challenging is that it (at least to this point) > isn't confined to the usual cast of (unrepresentative) characters. > > One fervently hopes that it will not be captured by the IGF and that > it does lead to a meaningful set of on-going processes that actually > address significant and critical issues rather than wraps them in > repetitiive (and dare I say deeply suspect) cotton batten and most > importantly looks towards democratic processes as the basis for in its > initiatives rather than "Multistakeholder" ones, upon which we are > still awaiting any useful definition or set of norms and procedures. > > Let this race go to the swiftest… > > M > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ]*On Behalf Of*Anriette Esterhuysen > *Sent:*Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:07 AM > *To:*AfriCS-IG > *Cc:* >; africann at afrinic.net > ; Nnenna Nwakanma > *Subject:*[bestbits] Re: [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF > Opening ceremony - Nnenna > > Dear NN > > So happy you are doing this. > > Just a few suggestions below, if possible. Take or leave and good > luck. You will be fantastic! > > Anriette > > > The centrality of human rights > > 1. Multistakeholder participation o > 2. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation > > Would be good to mention importance of civil society. Any approach to > EC that focuses oncooperation between governments at the expense of > cooperation among all stakeholders will not be sustainable. > > 1. Not losing the "development focus" of IG > 2. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability > 3. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS > IG processes at national levels > > Would be good to mention the IGF. It has become THE most importance > milestone along the road to more transparent and consistent dialogue > among stakeholders. It is a bit like the tortoise and the hare story.. > perhaps ICANN/Brazil's initiative is working fast, and thinks it will > win the race.. but that is also what the hare thought. The IGF process > is like the tortoise.. yes, it is slow, but it is consistent, > reliable, not fully inclusive but more inclusive than most processes. > The hare should not underestimate it. > > BUT - IGF needs capacity - at leadership and secretariat level. It > would be very short sighted if resources are spent on new processes > that could be spent on the IGF's improvement,, continuity and > sustainability. > > 1. Brazil 2014? > > > Sort of covered above. But there are many points from other CS > discussions on this. I think we should say we look forward to it being > strategic rather than just opportunistic: 1) strategic in its agenda > setting and 2) in how it facilitates participation and 3) in how it > positions itself in relation to other processes like the IGF, and the > UN CSTD EC working group, and the WSIS +10 process. it would be a pity > the Brazil 2014 efforts did not achieve its potential because of > either lack of legitimacy, or not being focused enough in its agenda > setting. > > > 1. Surveillance? > > From the APC 2013 IGF brief: > > Revelations about mass surveillance and data collection by the US > National Security > Agency (NSA) has shaken the internet community and undermined the > legitimacy of > actors from government and business who had positioned themselves as > leaders of the > “internet freedom” movement. [snip] > The most positive – and challenging – outcomes of these disturbing > revelations can be > built on by the IGF. Firstly, awareness of how internet policy and > regulation affects all > users is now much more widespread and talked about in global media. > Secondly, it cannot > be ignored that while public debate is flourishing at the IGF and > internet freedom events > around the world, there is, in the shadows, another internet > governance universe: one that > is secret, that follows the rule of law very selectively, or not at > all. A universe in which > powerful governments can ask powerful internet companies to comply > with rules that are > not public, not known, not even to the elected representatives of > those governments, not > to mention the shareholders of those companies, or the staff members > of those > administrations working hard to promote human rights on the internet, > transparency and > multi-stakeholder participation in global internet governance. > The IGF is a space where the internet community can let off steam, > confront one another > (surely that is why we come together in multi-stakeholder spaces?), > and identify how to > move forward to restore trust in internet governance as a process, and > an ecosystem > made up of institutions, actors, analysts and activists. Complacency > is not an option." > > > 1. Best Bits? > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > _______________________________________________ > AfriCS-IG mailing list > Info and options:http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > To unsubscribe, emailafrics-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > /www.ymca.gm > www.waigf.org > www.aficta.org > www.itag.gm > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > * > > */ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > AfriCS-IG mailing list > > Info and options:http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > > To unsubscribe, emailafrics-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 00:27:55 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:27:55 +0800 Subject: [governance] Friendly Reminder (IGC Meeting) Message-ID: <7E3682F1-79D0-4265-8852-B34A5E9C2A3F@gmail.com> Dear All, Venue: "Kintamani 8”... Upstairs Time: 12:46 - 1:46 All apologies previously given have been recorded. Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 00:29:26 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:29:26 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> References: <991C7C0D-DEFA-491B-9396-BFF55CEC5F02@gmail.com> <51847BD3-6BD3-42E6-B9BC-926669B02F24@uzh.ch> <00a101ceced6$d3c661c0$7b532540$@gmail.com> <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5EFF173A-840F-4992-9FF0-BC8136F272A4@gmail.com> Actually I did wonder about the same thing....but at least we got to comment from the floor!!! Sent from my iPad > On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:24 PM, parminder wrote: > > As I sit in the 'role of govs' main session, I see no reason really why three people in 'positions' here - panel or as moderators - from civil society - one speaker and two moderators, should all be from developed countries.... > > I did put that question at the MAG open consultations in Paris earlier this year - about domination of speakers from developed countries, but nothing much seems to change... > > In front of me on the panel, apart from the MAG Chair, three people from developed countries, one Indian who is AT & T employee, which I take to be his primary 'interest representation' , and just one person from developing countries, and two moderators from developed countries.. > > Figure, all people from developing countries has still to do a lot of capacity building... I understand a lot of 'IG' money is being poured by developed countries into developing countires, ans so thanks very much... > > Maybe around 2050, we would have sufficient capacity (and dominant ideology) build up to be given some kind of consideration of equity in global spaces... > > Meanwhile, to all UN baiters, this would never happen in a UN meeting... > > I will keep raising these question, which some take to be embarrassing, because I take it to be my political duty to do so... and so personal apologies to all involved. > > parminder > > >> On Tuesday 22 October 2013 08:58 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Bill, >> >> I'm sure that everyone is heartened to hear this but dare I say that your statement "I made a conscious effort to stay off the focus sessions this year and I believe other MAG CS people did too" is precisely the problem. >> >> What sort of a governance/management process is operative in the MAG/IGF where the already designated 5 or so members of the "MAG crowd" have to "make a conscious decision" and show sufficienr personal forebearance not to occupy all the places in public forums.. >> >> Surely the issue is that there should be processes in place that ensure that other voices are brought to the surface as a matter of course and of effective procedural management., not of sufferance or beneficence. >> >> M >> >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:29 AM >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> Cc: michael gurstein >> Subject: Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna >> >> Let's try this again from a subscribed account…. >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> From: William Drake >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna >> Date: October 22, 2013 9:29:28 AM GMT+08:00 >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: "Esterhuysen, Anriette" , bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, Nnenna >> >> Hi Mike >> >> I'm not subscribed to the two Africa-oriented lists you copied but feel free to forward this if you like. >> >> On Oct 22, 2013, at 4:35 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> I must say that I disagree with a public endorsement of the IGF as "THE" whatever… It may be "THE" something or other but only for lack of a better alternative. >> >> Let's agree to disagree on this >> >> >> I can't do the reckoning for this IGF (the way the program is set up) but by my count from the last IGF the (CS and to a slightly lesser degree for the other stakeholders) presentations in the Workshops and particularly plenaries consisted to an overwhelming and truly astonishing degree of the same half dozen CS characters (lets call them the MAG crowd) over and over again to the point of exhaustion, likely of them but certainly of anyone wanting to hear any fresh (and/or critical) perspectives. (Is it the case that a world with roughly 2 billion Internet users can only turn up a half dozen people to speak on its behalf at one yearly gabfest after another?) >> >> Criticizing this year's program based on last year's doesn't seem entirely fair. I made a conscious effort to stay off the focus sessions this year and I believe other MAG CS people did too. In consequence, the numbers don't seem to entirely match what you're saying. >> >> Opening Ceremony no MAG CS >> >> Building Bridges FS: no MAG CS, except the remote moderator, not a panelist >> >> IG Principles FS no MAG CS (I dropped out) >> >> Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation FS No MAG CS >> >> Legal and other Frameworks FS No MAG CS >> >> Internet as an engine for growth FS No MAG CS >> >> Human rights, freedom of expression FS No MAG CS >> >> Taking Stock / Emerging Issues FS No MAG CS >> >> Open Microphone Session 1 two MAG, not CS though >> >> Closing Ceremony no speakers listed but a CS rep TBD >> >> >> Workshops may be different, people on the MAG have as much right to propose something as anyone else. Nevertheless, I believe some of these were turned down in the MAG review, and given the number of events I don't think attendees are really left with no choice but to hear the apparently old stale ideas of people who happen to be on the MAG. >> >> It would of course be good to have more workshops proposed by non-usual suspects and I think there was a decent supply of these this year. But if you think more needs to be done, please get out there and recruit newbies rather than criticizing previous attendees for having the temerity to want to do something at the event. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> There may be a "dialogue" going on, but if it is a dialogue it is one that is stretching now over decades rather than (for example bridging generations, or social or economic divides, or cultural backgrounds and interests) and one of the reasons that the Brazil initiative is required and is so challenging is that it (at least to this point) isn't confined to the usual cast of (unrepresentative) characters. >> >> One fervently hopes that it will not be captured by the IGF and that it does lead to a meaningful set of on-going processes that actually address significant and critical issues rather than wraps them in repetitiive (and dare I say deeply suspect) cotton batten and most importantly looks towards democratic processes as the basis for in its initiatives rather than "Multistakeholder" ones, upon which we are still awaiting any useful definition or set of norms and procedures. >> >> Let this race go to the swiftest… >> >> M >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:07 AM >> To: AfriCS-IG >> Cc: ; africann at afrinic.net; Nnenna Nwakanma >> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna >> >> Dear NN >> >> So happy you are doing this. >> >> Just a few suggestions below, if possible. Take or leave and good luck. You will be fantastic! >> >> Anriette >> >> >> The centrality of human rights >> Multistakeholder participation o >> Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation >> Would be good to mention importance of civil society. Any approach to EC that focuses oncooperation between governments at the expense of cooperation among all stakeholders will not be sustainable. >> >> >> Not losing the "development focus" of IG >> The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability >> The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG processes at national levels >> Would be good to mention the IGF. It has become THE most importance milestone along the road to more transparent and consistent dialogue among stakeholders. It is a bit like the tortoise and the hare story.. perhaps ICANN/Brazil's initiative is working fast, and thinks it will win the race.. but that is also what the hare thought. The IGF process is like the tortoise.. yes, it is slow, but it is consistent, reliable, not fully inclusive but more inclusive than most processes. The hare should not underestimate it. >> >> BUT - IGF needs capacity - at leadership and secretariat level. It would be very short sighted if resources are spent on new processes that could be spent on the IGF's improvement,, continuity and sustainability. >> >> >> Brazil 2014? >> >> Sort of covered above. But there are many points from other CS discussions on this. I think we should say we look forward to it being strategic rather than just opportunistic: 1) strategic in its agenda setting and 2) in how it facilitates participation and 3) in how it positions itself in relation to other processes like the IGF, and the UN CSTD EC working group, and the WSIS +10 process. it would be a pity the Brazil 2014 efforts did not achieve its potential because of either lack of legitimacy, or not being focused enough in its agenda setting. >> >> >> >> Surveillance? >> From the APC 2013 IGF brief: >> >> Revelations about mass surveillance and data collection by the US National Security >> Agency (NSA) has shaken the internet community and undermined the legitimacy of >> actors from government and business who had positioned themselves as leaders of the >> “internet freedom” movement. [snip] >> The most positive – and challenging – outcomes of these disturbing revelations can be >> built on by the IGF. Firstly, awareness of how internet policy and regulation affects all >> users is now much more widespread and talked about in global media. Secondly, it cannot >> be ignored that while public debate is flourishing at the IGF and internet freedom events >> around the world, there is, in the shadows, another internet governance universe: one that >> is secret, that follows the rule of law very selectively, or not at all. A universe in which >> powerful governments can ask powerful internet companies to comply with rules that are >> not public, not known, not even to the elected representatives of those governments, not >> to mention the shareholders of those companies, or the staff members of those >> administrations working hard to promote human rights on the internet, transparency and >> multi-stakeholder participation in global internet governance. >> The IGF is a space where the internet community can let off steam, confront one another >> (surely that is why we come together in multi-stakeholder spaces?), and identify how to >> move forward to restore trust in internet governance as a process, and an ecosystem >> made up of institutions, actors, analysts and activists. Complacency is not an option." >> >> >> >> Best Bits? >> All for now >> >> >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AfriCS-IG mailing list >> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig >> To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> www.ymca.gm >> www.waigf.org >> www.aficta.org >> www.itag.gm >> www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 >> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AfriCS-IG mailing list >> Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig >> To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Tue Oct 22 00:38:07 2013 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:38:07 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> References: <991C7C0D-DEFA-491B-9396-BFF55CEC5F02@gmail.com> <51847BD3-6BD3-42E6-B9BC-926669B02F24@uzh.ch> <00a101ceced6$d3c661c0$7b532540$@gmail.com> <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi , Although I didn't attend the same session you did, I noticed this in other IGF sessions. I guess there is much more work required for more representatives from developing countries. Sincerely, Walid Al-Saqaf ISOC-Yemen On Oct 22, 2013 12:24 PM, "parminder" wrote: > As I sit in the 'role of govs' main session, I see no reason really why > three people in 'positions' here - panel or as moderators - from civil > society - one speaker and two moderators, should all be from developed > countries.... > > I did put that question at the MAG open consultations in Paris earlier > this year - about domination of speakers from developed countries, but > nothing much seems to change... > > In front of me on the panel, apart from the MAG Chair, three people from > developed countries, one Indian who is AT & T employee, which I take to be > his primary 'interest representation' , and just one person from developing > countries, and two moderators from developed countries.. > > Figure, all people from developing countries has still to do a lot of > capacity building... I understand a lot of 'IG' money is being poured by > developed countries into developing countires, ans so thanks very much... > > Maybe around 2050, we would have sufficient capacity (and dominant > ideology) build up to be given some kind of consideration of equity in > global spaces... > > Meanwhile, to all UN baiters, this would never happen in a UN meeting... > * > **I will keep raising these question, which some take to be > embarrassing, because I take it to be my political duty* *to do so*... > and so personal apologies to all involved. > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 22 October 2013 08:58 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Bill,**** > > ** ** > > I'm sure that everyone is heartened to hear this but dare I say that your > statement *"I made a conscious effort to stay off the focus sessions this > year and I believe other MAG CS people did too*" is precisely the > problem. **** > > ** ** > > What sort of a governance/management process is operative in the MAG/IGF > where the already designated 5 or so members of the "MAG crowd" have to > "make a conscious decision" and show sufficienr personal forebearance not > to occupy all the places in public forums.. **** > > ** ** > > Surely the issue is that there should be processes in place that ensure > that other voices are brought to the surface as a matter of course and of > effective procedural management., not of sufferance or beneficence. **** > > ** ** > > M **** > > ** ** > > *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch ] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:29 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Cc:* michael gurstein > *Subject:* Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening > ceremony - Nnenna**** > > ** ** > > Let's try this again from a subscribed account….**** > > ** ** > > Begin forwarded message:**** > > ** ** > > *From: *William Drake **** > > *Subject: Re: [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening > ceremony - Nnenna***** > > *Date: *October 22, 2013 9:29:28 AM GMT+08:00**** > > *To: *michael gurstein **** > > *Cc: *"Esterhuysen, Anriette" , > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, Nnenna **** > > ** ** > > Hi Mike**** > > ** ** > > I'm not subscribed to the two Africa-oriented lists you copied but feel > free to forward this if you like.**** > > ** ** > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 4:35 AM, michael gurstein wrote:* > *** > > ** ** > > I must say that I disagree with a public endorsement of the IGF as "THE" > whatever… It may be "THE" something or other but only for lack of a better > alternative. **** > > ** ** > > Let's agree to disagree on this**** > > ** ** > > I can't do the reckoning for this IGF (the way the program is set up) but > by my count from the last IGF the (CS and to a slightly lesser degree for > the other stakeholders) presentations in the Workshops and particularly > plenaries consisted to an overwhelming and truly astonishing degree of the > same half dozen CS characters (lets call them the MAG crowd) over and over > again to the point of exhaustion, likely of them but certainly of anyone > wanting to hear any fresh (and/or critical) perspectives. (Is it the case > that a world with roughly 2 billion Internet users can only turn up a half > dozen people to speak on its behalf at one yearly gabfest after another?)* > *** > > ** ** > > Criticizing this year's program based on last year's doesn't seem > entirely fair. I made a conscious effort to stay off the focus sessions > this year and I believe other MAG CS people did too. In consequence, the > numbers don't seem to entirely match what you're saying.**** > > ** ** > > Opening Ceremony > no MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Building Bridges FS: > no MAG CS, except the remote moderator, not a panelist**** > > ** ** > > IG Principles FS > no MAG CS (I dropped out)**** > > ** ** > > Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation FS No MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Legal and other Frameworks FS No > MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Internet as an engine for growth FS No MAG CS*** > * > > > Human rights, freedom of expression FS No MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Taking Stock / Emerging Issues FS No MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Open Microphone Session 1 > two MAG, not CS though**** > > ** ** > > Closing Ceremony > no speakers listed but a CS rep TBD**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Workshops may be different, people on the MAG have as much right to > propose something as anyone else. Nevertheless, I believe some of these > were turned down in the MAG review, and given the number of events I don't > think attendees are really left with no choice but to hear the apparently > old stale ideas of people who happen to be on the MAG.**** > > ** ** > > It would of course be good to have more workshops proposed by non-usual > suspects and I think there was a decent supply of these this year. But if > you think more needs to be done, please get out there and recruit newbies > rather than criticizing previous attendees for having the temerity to want > to do something at the event.**** > > ** ** > > Cheers**** > > ** ** > > Bill**** > > ** ** > > **** > > There may be a "dialogue" going on, but if it is a dialogue it is one that > is stretching now over decades rather than (for example bridging > generations, or social or economic divides, or cultural backgrounds and > interests) and one of the reasons that the Brazil initiative is required > and is so challenging is that it (at least to this point) isn't confined to > the usual cast of (unrepresentative) characters.**** > > **** > > One fervently hopes that it will not be captured by the IGF and that it > does lead to a meaningful set of on-going processes that actually address > significant and critical issues rather than wraps them in repetitiive (and > dare I say deeply suspect) cotton batten and most importantly looks towards > democratic processes as the basis for in its initiatives rather than > "Multistakeholder" ones, upon which we are still awaiting any useful > definition or set of norms and procedures.**** > > **** > > Let this race go to the swiftest…**** > > **** > > M**** > > **** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits - > request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette Esterhuysen > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:07 AM > *To:* AfriCS-IG > *Cc:* ; africann at afrinic.net; Nnenna Nwakanma > *Subject:* [bestbits] Re: [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening > ceremony - Nnenna**** > > **** > > Dear NN > > So happy you are doing this. > > Just a few suggestions below, if possible. Take or leave and good luck. > You will be fantastic! > > Anriette > > > The centrality of human rights**** > > > 1. Multistakeholder participation o**** > 2. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation**** > > Would be good to mention importance of civil society. Any approach to > EC that focuses oncooperation between governments at the expense of > cooperation among all stakeholders will not be sustainable. > > **** > > > 1. Not losing the "development focus" of IG**** > 2. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability**** > 3. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG > processes at national levels**** > > Would be good to mention the IGF. It has become THE most importance > milestone along the road to more transparent and consistent dialogue among > stakeholders. It is a bit like the tortoise and the hare story.. perhaps > ICANN/Brazil's initiative is working fast, and thinks it will win the > race.. but that is also what the hare thought. The IGF process is like the > tortoise.. yes, it is slow, but it is consistent, reliable, not fully > inclusive but more inclusive than most processes. The hare should not > underestimate it. > > BUT - IGF needs capacity - at leadership and secretariat level. It would > be very short sighted if resources are spent on new processes that could be > spent on the IGF's improvement,, continuity and sustainability. > > **** > > > 1. Brazil 2014?**** > > > Sort of covered above. But there are many points from other CS > discussions on this. I think we should say we look forward to it being > strategic rather than just opportunistic: 1) strategic in its agenda > setting and 2) in how it facilitates participation and 3) in how it > positions itself in relation to other processes like the IGF, and the UN > CSTD EC working group, and the WSIS +10 process. it would be a pity the > Brazil 2014 efforts did not achieve its potential because of either lack of > legitimacy, or not being focused enough in its agenda setting. > > > **** > > > 1. Surveillance?**** > > From the APC 2013 IGF brief: > > Revelations about mass surveillance and data collection by the US National > Security > Agency (NSA) has shaken the internet community and undermined the > legitimacy of > actors from government and business who had positioned themselves as > leaders of the > “internet freedom” movement. [snip] > The most positive – and challenging – outcomes of these disturbing > revelations can be > built on by the IGF. Firstly, awareness of how internet policy and > regulation affects all > users is now much more widespread and talked about in global media. > Secondly, it cannot > be ignored that while public debate is flourishing at the IGF and internet > freedom events > around the world, there is, in the shadows, another internet governance > universe: one that > is secret, that follows the rule of law very selectively, or not at all. A > universe in which > powerful governments can ask powerful internet companies to comply with > rules that are > not public, not known, not even to the elected representatives of those > governments, not > to mention the shareholders of those companies, or the staff members of > those > administrations working hard to promote human rights on the internet, > transparency and > multi-stakeholder participation in global internet governance. > The IGF is a space where the internet community can let off steam, > confront one another > (surely that is why we come together in multi-stakeholder spaces?), and > identify how to > move forward to restore trust in internet governance as a process, and an > ecosystem > made up of institutions, actors, analysts and activists. Complacency is > not an option." > > > **** > > > 1. Best Bits?**** > > All for now**** > > **** > > Nnenna**** > > > _______________________________________________ > AfriCS-IG mailing list > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org**** > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > *www.ymca.gm > www.waigf.org > www.aficta.org > www.itag.gm > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > ***** > > > > > **** > > _______________________________________________**** > > AfriCS-IG mailing list**** > > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig**** > > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org**** > > > > **** > > -- **** > > ------------------------------------------------------**** > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org**** > > executive director, association for progressive communications**** > > www.apc.org**** > > po box 29755, melville 2109**** > > south africa**** > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 01:21:59 2013 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:21:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Friendly Reminder (IGC Meeting) In-Reply-To: <7E3682F1-79D0-4265-8852-B34A5E9C2A3F@gmail.com> References: <7E3682F1-79D0-4265-8852-B34A5E9C2A3F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Clearing from the meeting: We are not in room 8 we are in "Kintamani 8”... Upstairs next to where the lunch is. Best, Bernard On Oct 22, 2013 12:28 PM, "Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Venue: "Kintamani 8”... Upstairs > Time: 12:46 - 1:46 > > All apologies previously given have been recorded. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Oct 22 01:22:15 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:22:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Meeting: Lunch break day 1 (Tuesday Oct 22) In-Reply-To: <20131021143725.7268d5a8@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131018115717.2db1b017@swan.bollow.ch> <20131021143725.7268d5a8@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0898D404-0587-4317-9DAF-096E0816F8C8@ciroap.org> We tried to go there but were told it was the wrong room... Has there been a change? I'm with three others. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. On 21 Oct 2013, at 8:37 pm, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> After communication by email with the IGF secretariat proved to be >>> difficult, Sala and I decided that I'd chase them up in person... >>> this is worked out, and we now have the following room booked for >>> the IGC meeting for the “lunch break” slot on day 1 of the IGF >>> (Tuesday Oct 22)... >>> >>> Kintamani 8 > > William Drake wrote: > >> FWIW the MAG has a meeting then with Asst. SG Gass, so you'll be >> minus a few people. > > Ouch. My sincere apologies to you and all other MAG members, > especially given that it was your initiative/inspiration to make > this happen! Alas there seems to not be a reasonable way to change > the meeting time in the present last-minute kind of situation. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 02:50:38 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:50:38 +0800 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <351F27F31D624FB889E904E6026E15C8@Toshiba> References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <351F27F31D624FB889E904E6026E15C8@Toshiba> Message-ID: <4FB9F800-F1D3-44AD-9C8E-CB7D07653F0D@gmail.com> All the best Nnenna :) Sent from my iPad > On Oct 22, 2013, at 6:14 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > Looks great Nnenna. I wonder if at the same time we talk about unwarranted surveillance we can raise the related issue of personal data (including personal contact lists) being used by corporations for marketing purposes without explicit permission. > > > > From: Nnenna > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:25 AM > To: IG Caucus > Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] > > Dear all > > Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. > > ======= > > A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds > B. Key principles : 120 seconds > Human rights and the safeguard of diversity > Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels > The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, support health services, education and provide opportunities > C : Our aims : 120 seconds > Enhanced cooperation > Affordable Internet > Accessibility of and on the Internet > Viable and capable IG processes at national levels > D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds > Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of Internet as a tool for social justice and equity > The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across the globe > E : Thanks – 30 seconds > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 02:57:04 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 06:57:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> References: <991C7C0D-DEFA-491B-9396-BFF55CEC5F02@gmail.com> <51847BD3-6BD3-42E6-B9BC-926669B02F24@uzh.ch> <00a101ceced6$d3c661c0$7b532540$@gmail.com> <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Please keep raising those questions. There is no need to apologize in a CS forum for raising questions about equity in representation. Thanks mawaki On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:24 AM, parminder wrote: > As I sit in the 'role of govs' main session, I see no reason really why > three people in 'positions' here - panel or as moderators - from civil > society - one speaker and two moderators, should all be from developed > countries.... > > I did put that question at the MAG open consultations in Paris earlier > this year - about domination of speakers from developed countries, but > nothing much seems to change... > > In front of me on the panel, apart from the MAG Chair, three people from > developed countries, one Indian who is AT & T employee, which I take to be > his primary 'interest representation' , and just one person from developing > countries, and two moderators from developed countries.. > > Figure, all people from developing countries has still to do a lot of > capacity building... I understand a lot of 'IG' money is being poured by > developed countries into developing countires, ans so thanks very much... > > Maybe around 2050, we would have sufficient capacity (and dominant > ideology) build up to be given some kind of consideration of equity in > global spaces... > > Meanwhile, to all UN baiters, this would never happen in a UN meeting... > * > **I will keep raising these question, which some take to be > embarrassing, because I take it to be my political duty* *to do so*... > and so personal apologies to all involved. > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 22 October 2013 08:58 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Bill,**** > > ** ** > > I'm sure that everyone is heartened to hear this but dare I say that your > statement *"I made a conscious effort to stay off the focus sessions this > year and I believe other MAG CS people did too*" is precisely the > problem. **** > > ** ** > > What sort of a governance/management process is operative in the MAG/IGF > where the already designated 5 or so members of the "MAG crowd" have to > "make a conscious decision" and show sufficienr personal forebearance not > to occupy all the places in public forums.. **** > > ** ** > > Surely the issue is that there should be processes in place that ensure > that other voices are brought to the surface as a matter of course and of > effective procedural management., not of sufferance or beneficence. **** > > ** ** > > M **** > > ** ** > > *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch ] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:29 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Cc:* michael gurstein > *Subject:* Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening > ceremony - Nnenna**** > > ** ** > > Let's try this again from a subscribed account….**** > > ** ** > > Begin forwarded message:**** > > ** ** > > *From: *William Drake **** > > *Subject: Re: [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening > ceremony - Nnenna***** > > *Date: *October 22, 2013 9:29:28 AM GMT+08:00**** > > *To: *michael gurstein **** > > *Cc: *"Esterhuysen, Anriette" , > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, Nnenna **** > > ** ** > > Hi Mike**** > > ** ** > > I'm not subscribed to the two Africa-oriented lists you copied but feel > free to forward this if you like.**** > > ** ** > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 4:35 AM, michael gurstein wrote:* > *** > > ** ** > > I must say that I disagree with a public endorsement of the IGF as "THE" > whatever… It may be "THE" something or other but only for lack of a better > alternative. **** > > ** ** > > Let's agree to disagree on this**** > > ** ** > > I can't do the reckoning for this IGF (the way the program is set up) but > by my count from the last IGF the (CS and to a slightly lesser degree for > the other stakeholders) presentations in the Workshops and particularly > plenaries consisted to an overwhelming and truly astonishing degree of the > same half dozen CS characters (lets call them the MAG crowd) over and over > again to the point of exhaustion, likely of them but certainly of anyone > wanting to hear any fresh (and/or critical) perspectives. (Is it the case > that a world with roughly 2 billion Internet users can only turn up a half > dozen people to speak on its behalf at one yearly gabfest after another?)* > *** > > ** ** > > Criticizing this year's program based on last year's doesn't seem > entirely fair. I made a conscious effort to stay off the focus sessions > this year and I believe other MAG CS people did too. In consequence, the > numbers don't seem to entirely match what you're saying.**** > > ** ** > > Opening Ceremony > no MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Building Bridges FS: > no MAG CS, except the remote moderator, not a panelist**** > > ** ** > > IG Principles FS > no MAG CS (I dropped out)**** > > ** ** > > Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation FS No MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Legal and other Frameworks FS No > MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Internet as an engine for growth FS No MAG CS*** > * > > > Human rights, freedom of expression FS No MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Taking Stock / Emerging Issues FS No MAG CS**** > > ** ** > > Open Microphone Session 1 > two MAG, not CS though**** > > ** ** > > Closing Ceremony > no speakers listed but a CS rep TBD**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Workshops may be different, people on the MAG have as much right to > propose something as anyone else. Nevertheless, I believe some of these > were turned down in the MAG review, and given the number of events I don't > think attendees are really left with no choice but to hear the apparently > old stale ideas of people who happen to be on the MAG.**** > > ** ** > > It would of course be good to have more workshops proposed by non-usual > suspects and I think there was a decent supply of these this year. But if > you think more needs to be done, please get out there and recruit newbies > rather than criticizing previous attendees for having the temerity to want > to do something at the event.**** > > ** ** > > Cheers**** > > ** ** > > Bill**** > > ** ** > > **** > > There may be a "dialogue" going on, but if it is a dialogue it is one that > is stretching now over decades rather than (for example bridging > generations, or social or economic divides, or cultural backgrounds and > interests) and one of the reasons that the Brazil initiative is required > and is so challenging is that it (at least to this point) isn't confined to > the usual cast of (unrepresentative) characters.**** > > **** > > One fervently hopes that it will not be captured by the IGF and that it > does lead to a meaningful set of on-going processes that actually address > significant and critical issues rather than wraps them in repetitiive (and > dare I say deeply suspect) cotton batten and most importantly looks towards > democratic processes as the basis for in its initiatives rather than > "Multistakeholder" ones, upon which we are still awaiting any useful > definition or set of norms and procedures.**** > > **** > > Let this race go to the swiftest…**** > > **** > > M**** > > **** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits - > request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anriette Esterhuysen > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:07 AM > *To:* AfriCS-IG > *Cc:* ; africann at afrinic.net; Nnenna Nwakanma > *Subject:* [bestbits] Re: [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening > ceremony - Nnenna**** > > **** > > Dear NN > > So happy you are doing this. > > Just a few suggestions below, if possible. Take or leave and good luck. > You will be fantastic! > > Anriette > > > The centrality of human rights**** > > > 1. Multistakeholder participation o**** > 2. Ongoing work on enhanced cooperation**** > > Would be good to mention importance of civil society. Any approach to > EC that focuses oncooperation between governments at the expense of > cooperation among all stakeholders will not be sustainable. > > **** > > > 1. Not losing the "development focus" of IG**** > 2. The "not-ended" battle of Internet access and affordability**** > 3. The urgent need to reinforce teh capacity and efficiency of MS IG > processes at national levels**** > > Would be good to mention the IGF. It has become THE most importance > milestone along the road to more transparent and consistent dialogue among > stakeholders. It is a bit like the tortoise and the hare story.. perhaps > ICANN/Brazil's initiative is working fast, and thinks it will win the > race.. but that is also what the hare thought. The IGF process is like the > tortoise.. yes, it is slow, but it is consistent, reliable, not fully > inclusive but more inclusive than most processes. The hare should not > underestimate it. > > BUT - IGF needs capacity - at leadership and secretariat level. It would > be very short sighted if resources are spent on new processes that could be > spent on the IGF's improvement,, continuity and sustainability. > > **** > > > 1. Brazil 2014?**** > > > Sort of covered above. But there are many points from other CS > discussions on this. I think we should say we look forward to it being > strategic rather than just opportunistic: 1) strategic in its agenda > setting and 2) in how it facilitates participation and 3) in how it > positions itself in relation to other processes like the IGF, and the UN > CSTD EC working group, and the WSIS +10 process. it would be a pity the > Brazil 2014 efforts did not achieve its potential because of either lack of > legitimacy, or not being focused enough in its agenda setting. > > > **** > > > 1. Surveillance?**** > > From the APC 2013 IGF brief: > > Revelations about mass surveillance and data collection by the US National > Security > Agency (NSA) has shaken the internet community and undermined the > legitimacy of > actors from government and business who had positioned themselves as > leaders of the > “internet freedom” movement. [snip] > The most positive – and challenging – outcomes of these disturbing > revelations can be > built on by the IGF. Firstly, awareness of how internet policy and > regulation affects all > users is now much more widespread and talked about in global media. > Secondly, it cannot > be ignored that while public debate is flourishing at the IGF and internet > freedom events > around the world, there is, in the shadows, another internet governance > universe: one that > is secret, that follows the rule of law very selectively, or not at all. A > universe in which > powerful governments can ask powerful internet companies to comply with > rules that are > not public, not known, not even to the elected representatives of those > governments, not > to mention the shareholders of those companies, or the staff members of > those > administrations working hard to promote human rights on the internet, > transparency and > multi-stakeholder participation in global internet governance. > The IGF is a space where the internet community can let off steam, > confront one another > (surely that is why we come together in multi-stakeholder spaces?), and > identify how to > move forward to restore trust in internet governance as a process, and an > ecosystem > made up of institutions, actors, analysts and activists. Complacency is > not an option." > > > **** > > > 1. Best Bits?**** > > All for now**** > > **** > > Nnenna**** > > > _______________________________________________ > AfriCS-IG mailing list > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org**** > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > *www.ymca.gm > www.waigf.org > www.aficta.org > www.itag.gm > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > ***** > > > > > **** > > _______________________________________________**** > > AfriCS-IG mailing list**** > > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/africs-ig**** > > To unsubscribe, email africs-ig-unsubscribe at lists.apc.org**** > > > > **** > > -- **** > > ------------------------------------------------------**** > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org**** > > executive director, association for progressive communications**** > > www.apc.org**** > > po box 29755, melville 2109**** > > south africa**** > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From moctarseck at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 02:58:39 2013 From: moctarseck at gmail.com (Mactar SECK) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:58:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Congratulations Nenna for this. All the best. On 21 Oct 2013 17:26, "Nnenna" wrote: > Dear all > > Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I > received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried > to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am > reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. > > ======= > > A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds > B. Key principles : 120 seconds > > 1. Human rights and the safeguard of diversity > 2. Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels > 3. The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, > support health services, education and provide opportunities > > C : Our aims : 120 seconds > > 1. Enhanced cooperation > 2. Affordable Internet > 3. Accessibility of and on the Internet > 4. Viable and capable IG processes at national levels > > D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds > > 1. Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of > Internet as a tool for social justice and equity > 2. The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across > the globe > > E : Thanks – 30 seconds > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Tue Oct 22 07:28:10 2013 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu ('Yuliya Morenets') Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:28:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?IGF=5FOpen_Forum=5FVulnerable_people=26ICT?= =?UTF-8?Q?s_recommendations_for_Strategy=5FOpening_message_Mr_Fadi_Chehad?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=A9_and_Mr_Henri_Malosse?= Message-ID: <670fc1eb84dd596113eee47613bad3e9be4c21b8@ssl0.ovh.net> Dear all, We would like to invite you to attend our Open Forum (Flash), supported by IFLA, Day 2, Room 5, 14:30-15:15, where we would like to discuss the outcome of the IGF 2012, Working Group on Vulnerable people &ICTs engaged to work on recommendations for better inclusion of vulnerable people in the Information Society. The Forum will start with the message from Mr Henri Malosse (President of the European Economic and Social Committee) and Mr Fadi Chehadé (President&CEO of ICANN). Please join our key participants, among them Mr Nigel Hickson for 45minutes discussion, as we need your input on needs and solutions from and for vulnerable and marginalized communities.  Detailed flyer is attached. We look forward to welcoming you tomorrow, Best regards, Yuliya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF_Open Forum_Vulnerable_flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 304315 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 07:38:50 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:38:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF 2013 Archived Streams being posted already Message-ID: http://www.youtube.com/user/igf/videos Apologies for cross-posting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Tue Oct 22 04:42:07 2013 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:42:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop #62 at IGF Bali Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From capdasiege at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 08:40:36 2013 From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:40:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Workshop #62 at IGF Bali In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: HI Tijani, I will attend, Best, 2013/10/22 > Dear all, > > For those of you who are in Bali for the 8th IGF, please join us in the > Workshop #62 > > Workshop Titile: How can the Internet be an engine for development and > growth? > > Organizer: AFRALO ICANN > > When: day 2, Wednesday 23 October 2013 from 14:30 to 16:00 > > Where: Room 2 Hall 1 > > AFRALO-ICANN will be happy to welcome you to actively participate in this > workshop > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Vice Chair > ICANN AFrican Regional At-Large Organization (AFRALO) > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Michel TCHONANG LINZE* Coordinateur Général Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS) *ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! * - *FGI du 22 au 25 Octobre 2013* à Bali, Indonésie - *ICANN48 du 17 au 21 Novembre* à Buenos Aires, Argentine - *ITU TELECOM WORLD du 19 au 22 Novembre 2013* à Bangkok, Thailande - *18ème Réunion du GCDT du 10 au 13 Decembre 2013* à Genève, Suisse CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique) BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49 Fax : (237) 3340-46-49 Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr Site : www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Tue Oct 22 09:41:53 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:41:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, and hope your IGF is going well... De Williams has agreed to accept nomination for IGC co-coordinator to replace Sala in the (soon) upcoming election. We need others to offer options! Thanks De, Cheers, Ginger On 19 September 2013 01:39, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > This is a call for nominations for candidates who will wish to stand in > the elections for the co-coordinator position. My term will be ending soon > and I will need to be replaced. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in >> standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to >> nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So >> that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to >> choose from. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From odamyte at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 10:41:29 2013 From: odamyte at gmail.com (Jacob Odame) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:41:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Nnenna, I watched your opening speech remotely. Very well done!!!!! J On Oct 21, 2013 2:26 PM, "Nnenna" wrote: > Dear all > > Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I > received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried > to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am > reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. > > ======= > > A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds > B. Key principles : 120 seconds > > 1. Human rights and the safeguard of diversity > 2. Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels > 3. The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, > support health services, education and provide opportunities > > C : Our aims : 120 seconds > > 1. Enhanced cooperation > 2. Affordable Internet > 3. Accessibility of and on the Internet > 4. Viable and capable IG processes at national levels > > D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds > > 1. Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of > Internet as a tool for social justice and equity > 2. The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across > the globe > > E : Thanks – 30 seconds > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Tue Oct 22 10:45:18 2013 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:45:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I add my voice to Jacob. Well done indeed Nnenna! You rocked the stage! Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jacob Odame wrote: > Hi Nnenna, > > I watched your opening speech remotely. Very well done!!!!! > > J > On Oct 21, 2013 2:26 PM, "Nnenna" wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I >> received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried >> to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am >> reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. >> >> ======= >> >> A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds >> B. Key principles : 120 seconds >> >> 1. Human rights and the safeguard of diversity >> 2. Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels >> 3. The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, >> support health services, education and provide opportunities >> >> C : Our aims : 120 seconds >> >> 1. Enhanced cooperation >> 2. Affordable Internet >> 3. Accessibility of and on the Internet >> 4. Viable and capable IG processes at national levels >> >> D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds >> >> 1. Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of >> Internet as a tool for social justice and equity >> 2. The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across >> the globe >> >> E : Thanks – 30 seconds >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Oct 22 10:45:05 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:45:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <11296B97-615C-4DE5-A9C1-3E02F835F6B3@acm.org> hi, It was a fine talk. One of the best of the session. avri On 21 Oct 2013, at 22:25, Nnenna wrote: > Dear all > > Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. > > ======= > > A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds > B. Key principles : 120 seconds > • Human rights and the safeguard of diversity > • Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels > • The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, support health services, education and provide opportunities > C : Our aims : 120 seconds > • Enhanced cooperation > • Affordable Internet > • Accessibility of and on the Internet > • Viable and capable IG processes at national levels > D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds > • Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of Internet as a tool for social justice and equity > • The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across the globe > E : Thanks – 30 seconds > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Oct 22 10:48:37 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:48:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] The Bolt/BTLJ - "Internet Governance in the Age of Surveillance" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52669045.7060409@cafonso.ca> Agreed! Grande Sergio, obrigado. fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/21/2013 11:47 PM, McTim wrote: > Very good background document, thanks! > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 22 10:54:14 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <11296B97-615C-4DE5-A9C1-3E02F835F6B3@acm.org> References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <11296B97-615C-4DE5-A9C1-3E02F835F6B3@acm.org> Message-ID: <1382453654.13279.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Many thanks, everyone. I only read out the issues that were raised by most of us here. Thank you, for the support N   On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: hi, It was a fine talk. One of the best of the session. avri On 21 Oct 2013, at 22:25, Nnenna wrote: > Dear all >  > Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input.  Below, I have tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. > > ======= > > A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds > B. Key principles : 120 seconds >     • Human rights  and the safeguard of diversity >     • Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels >     • The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, support health services, education and provide opportunities > C : Our aims : 120 seconds >     • Enhanced cooperation >     • Affordable Internet >     • Accessibility of and on the Internet >     • Viable and capable IG processes at national levels > D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds >     • Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of Internet as a tool for social justice and equity >     • The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across the globe > E : Thanks – 30 seconds > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Oct 22 11:02:16 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:02:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <52669378.6050603@cafonso.ca> Dear Nnenna, you did a beautiful, objective, crucial speech! Congratulations! fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/22/2013 04:58 AM, Mactar SECK wrote: > Congratulations Nenna for this. > All the best. > > On 21 Oct 2013 17:26, "Nnenna" > wrote: > > Dear all > Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I > received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have > tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes > and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. > > ======= > > A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds > B. Key principles : 120 seconds > > 1. > Human rights and the safeguard of diversity > 2. > Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels > 3. > The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, > support health services, education and provide opportunities > > C : Our aims : 120 seconds > > 1. > Enhanced cooperation > 2. > Affordable Internet > 3. > Accessibility of and on the Internet > 4. > Viable and capable IG processes at national levels > > D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds > > 1. > Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of > Internet as a tool for social justice and equity > 2. > The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across > the globe > > E : Thanks – 30 seconds > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Tue Oct 22 11:03:57 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:03:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <52669378.6050603@cafonso.ca> References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52669378.6050603@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: +1... kudos (and chocolate) to you! gp On 22 October 2013 10:02, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear Nnenna, you did a beautiful, objective, crucial speech! > > Congratulations! > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 10/22/2013 04:58 AM, Mactar SECK wrote: > >> Congratulations Nenna for this. >> All the best. >> >> On 21 Oct 2013 17:26, "Nnenna" > > wrote: >> >> Dear all >> Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I >> received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have >> tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes >> and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. >> >> ======= >> >> A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds >> B. Key principles : 120 seconds >> >> 1. >> Human rights and the safeguard of diversity >> 2. >> Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels >> 3. >> The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, >> support health services, education and provide opportunities >> >> C : Our aims : 120 seconds >> >> 1. >> Enhanced cooperation >> 2. >> Affordable Internet >> 3. >> Accessibility of and on the Internet >> 4. >> Viable and capable IG processes at national levels >> >> D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds >> >> 1. >> Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of >> Internet as a tool for social justice and equity >> 2. >> The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across >> the globe >> >> E : Thanks – 30 seconds >> >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From garth.graham at telus.net Tue Oct 22 12:13:20 2013 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:13:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> References: <991C7C0D-DEFA-491B-9396-BFF55CEC5F02@gmail.com> <51847BD3-6BD3-42E6-B9BC-926669B02F24@uzh.ch> <00a101ceced6$d3c661c0$7b532540$@gmail.com> <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2926BA47-07AA-4AF3-8AE4-35EC3DF7EEC3@telus.net> On 2013-10-21, at 9:24 PM, parminder wrote: Maybe around 2050, we would have sufficient capacity (and dominant ideology) build up to be given some kind of consideration of equity in global spaces… While I'm all in favour of equity in global spaces, I don't see how dominant ideology is a route towards achieving it. Systems based on rules (ideologies) assume they will be applied externally. The inputs mechanistically predict the outputs. Neat and tidy, but there's a reason why pragmatism and practice are both rooted in deeds and their doing. Systems based on principles (protocols) assume they will be applied internally and in relation to particular contexts. The potential outputs are complex and are not governing by the inputs. Because they are open to their environments (ecologies), they are capable of learning. In 2050, if the Internet survives, it will mean that practices emerging from situated learning have largely replaced dominant ideologies. GG -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Oct 22 14:03:26 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 03:03:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <52669378.6050603@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Yes, the best of all Opening speeches with passion! izumi 2013/10/23 Ginger Paque > +1... kudos (and chocolate) to you! gp > > > On 22 October 2013 10:02, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear Nnenna, you did a beautiful, objective, crucial speech! >> >> Congratulations! >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/22/2013 04:58 AM, Mactar SECK wrote: >> >>> Congratulations Nenna for this. >>> All the best. >>> >>> On 21 Oct 2013 17:26, "Nnenna" >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear all >>> Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I >>> received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have >>> tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes >>> and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. >>> >>> ======= >>> >>> A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds >>> B. Key principles : 120 seconds >>> >>> 1. >>> Human rights and the safeguard of diversity >>> 2. >>> Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels >>> 3. >>> The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, >>> support health services, education and provide opportunities >>> >>> C : Our aims : 120 seconds >>> >>> 1. >>> Enhanced cooperation >>> 2. >>> Affordable Internet >>> 3. >>> Accessibility of and on the Internet >>> 4. >>> Viable and capable IG processes at national levels >>> >>> D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds >>> >>> 1. >>> Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of >>> Internet as a tool for social justice and equity >>> 2. >>> The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across >>> the globe >>> >>> E : Thanks – 30 seconds >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Oct 22 14:04:51 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re [bestbits] [africs-ig] Civil Society speaker: IGF Opening ceremony - Nnenna In-Reply-To: <2926BA47-07AA-4AF3-8AE4-35EC3DF7EEC3@telus.net> References: <991C7C0D-DEFA-491B-9396-BFF55CEC5F02@gmail.com> <51847BD3-6BD3-42E6-B9BC-926669B02F24@uzh.ch> <00a101ceced6$d3c661c0$7b532540$@gmail.com> <5265FDEC.3000900@itforchange.net> <2926BA47-07AA-4AF3-8AE4-35EC3DF7EEC3@telus.net> Message-ID: <1382465091.43625.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All As a general observation it would be good to move away from this demarcation between "developing and developed" countries.Each have their strengths and contributions.In fact without the contribution of the "developing countries ,the developed countries would have some major issues.  In addition we often observes that many individuals originally from developing countries are still representing the needs of their country of origin despite being domiciled in developed countries. That is to be appreciated. regards  Shaila Rao Mistry     President StemInstitute Transforming Ideas into Action   President JAYCOMMI Input Technology With A Human Touch   www.jaycopanels.com Tel: 951 738 2000   MWOSB         The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:13 AM, Garth Graham wrote: On 2013-10-21, at 9:24 PM, parminder wrote: Maybe around 2050, we would have sufficient capacity (and dominant ideology) build up to be given some kind of consideration of equity in global spaces… While I'm all in favour of equity in global spaces, I don't see how dominant ideology is a route towards achieving it. Systems based on rules (ideologies) assume they will be applied externally. The inputs mechanistically predict the outputs.  Neat and tidy, but there's a reason why pragmatism and practice are both rooted in deeds and their doing.  Systems based on principles (protocols) assume they will be applied internally and in relation to particular contexts. The potential outputs are complex and are not governing by the inputs.  Because they are open to their environments (ecologies), they are capable of learning.  In 2050, if the Internet survives, it will mean that practices emerging from situated learning have largely replaced dominant ideologies. GG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 17:26:16 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:26:16 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Feedback on Internet Principles and Dynamic Coalition [ Call for Comments] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *BRIEF OVERVIEW: HUMAN RIGHTS #Internet Rights Principles #Charter* *What's on Today:* FOCUS Session on Internet Governance and Principles *Time:* 9:30-11:00 Main Hall, Nusa Dua Hall 5 *Remote Participation Link:* http://webcast.igf2013.or.id/ *Comments on the Feedback from the IGC on 10 Principles – Charter* This is the updated version which carries your reservations. I would like to invite you all to comment on which ones you agree to , have reservations on or object to before I send this to the IRP Teams in the IGF. Shaila raised some good points and you can be rest assured that they are open to receiving feedback. I am attaching the current updated version on record of position of members on the Charter. Also feel free to highlight what you perceive to be "sticky" issues. Before the end of the IGF, I will forward this to Marianne Franklin. So make your voices heard either through attending the workshops in person or remotely or through making your submissions here. Note: IRP Coalition Meeting starts on Thursday Morning * * *Internet Rights and Principles Online * * * For those like me who did not attend the IRP session yesterday, the entire session was captured via video, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KlYW1BNV38 Pranesh raised rights and access for disabled persons and spoke in representation of a colleague that is visually impaired. He mentioned that screen reader platforms such as JAWS is only accessible through piracy and it raises some conflicts between intellectual property rights and access issues. Marianne Franklin initiated similar discussions on proprietary software versus open source software and challenges to access to education, knowledge. Joy Liddicoat of APC talked briefly about women and Internet Governance. She suggested that there was very poor dialogue on women in the Internet. Joy also raised challenges of surveillance in countries that have rule of law challenges. Microsoft also spoke about how as a corporate entity and their role in Human Rights advocacy. To see Microsoft's position, see: https://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/en-us/working-responsibly/principled-business-practices/human-rights/ UK Govt Rep spoke about challenges from a government perspective due to lack of a clear framework and challenges in international and national policy making. There were some interesting interactions from the floor and how the conversation on the local scene has been happening for three years in Argentina. Eduardo (Professor and Human Rights Expert) wants the document to have something concrete and a final document and suggests that the current charter be the final version. He raised that the Charter should also be accessible in multiple languages. Derick interacted from the floor to say that the Charter should continue to evolve. *[Sala's Thoughts] Feel Free to Add more considerations* 1)What are some things that can be done to address the moral and ethical conflict? 2)Should there be some form of government subsidy that pays for the software to enable this to be used by those that are physically challenged? 3)How do these rights and principles trickle down into practical and tangible solutions. 4)Is the poor dialogue on Gender and the Internet something that the MAG should address by enabling this discussions. There is a roundtable on Gender and Rights later this week. 5)Are these factored into ICT policies for national contexts. 6)Should funding be given to research units in Universities in these jurisdictions that allow students to build similar platforms? There are many ways to skin a cat. What are some ways in which civil society, private sector and public sector can cooperate to address these challenges in practical and tangible way? There are many examples of cross sectoral collaborative initiatives to design solutions to encourage "access" and it will be great to share these examples. At the end of the IGF, I would like to send our feedback to the IRP Team. For those who have commented many thanks and for those who have yet to, please do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC Feedback on Internet Principles 23.10.13.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18713 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 22 18:54:54 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:54:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WS_127_=E2=80=9CMS_selection_processes=3A_?= =?UTF-8?Q?accountability_and_transparency=E2=80=9D?= In-Reply-To: <20130503182433.79f5c57e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130503182433.79f5c57e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20131023005454.46021af7@swan.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all Workshop 127 “MS selection processes: accountability and transparency” (which the IGC is co-hosting with the three “focal points” for the nongovernmental stakeholder groups in the selection of participants in the CSTD WG on WEnhanced Cooperation) is taking place today 14.30-16.00 in workshop Room #9 Kintamani 7. Here's the workshop's link on the IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Oct 22 19:12:53 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:12:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] NCUC @ IGF Message-ID: Hello, The Noncommercial Users Constituency in ICANN invites interested fellow travelers to consider attending the following workshops, starting today: Wednesday October 23, 16:30-18:00, Room 8, Kintamani 2 WS 249 Civil Society in ICANN’s Multistakeholderism: The GNSO Case [joint between NCSG, NCUC and NPOC] http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=249 Thursday October 24, 11:00-12:30, Room 10, Kintamani 6 WS 253 The Debate on ‘Closed’ Generic Top Level Domains http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_accomplish_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=253 Friday October 25, 9:00-10:30, Room 3, Nusa Dua Hall 3 No. 129 Human Rights & Multi-Stakeholder Governance: ICANN Experience http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=129 Friday October 25, 11:00-12:30, Room 9, Kintamani 7 WS 282 Internet/Telecom ‘Convergence’ and Global Internet Governance http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=282 Cheers, Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 22 20:21:02 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:21:02 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27F252F5E6DF40D4A7A24E6FDA187307@Toshiba> Thanks De ! Thats a great nomination, and while encouraging others I certainly think we now have someone very good and capable to take over from Sala. Ian Peter From: Ginger Paque Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: Re: [governance] Re: IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] Hi everyone, and hope your IGF is going well... De Williams has agreed to accept nomination for IGC co-coordinator to replace Sala in the (soon) upcoming election. We need others to offer options! Thanks De, Cheers, Ginger On 19 September 2013 01:39, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, This is a call for nominations for candidates who will wish to stand in the elections for the co-coordinator position. My term will be ending soon and I will need to be replaced. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to choose from. Thank you. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 23:38:38 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:38:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] A New Model For Internet Governance Is In The Air Message-ID: via @Burcu October 23, 2013. A New Model For Internet Governance Is In The Air Brazilian Minister of Communications Paolo Bernado Silva, during the opening session of this week's 8th Internet Governance Forum in Bali, Indonesia, announced that the goal of the Internet Governance Summit in Brazil next spring will be to find a new model for internet governance. Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=32521&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raul at lacnic.net Wed Oct 23 00:31:16 2013 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:31:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brief outline of opening ceremony speech [Nnenna] In-Reply-To: <11296B97-615C-4DE5-A9C1-3E02F835F6B3@acm.org> References: <1382365539.14299.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <11296B97-615C-4DE5-A9C1-3E02F835F6B3@acm.org> Message-ID: <076C2ECE-34E6-4049-A632-85B1F01AC955@lacnic.net> Agreed. It was an impressive speech!! Raúl El 22/10/2013, a las 12:45, Avri Doria escribió: > hi, > > It was a fine talk. > > One of the best of the session. > > avri > > On 21 Oct 2013, at 22:25, Nnenna wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Very many thanks to all who have contributed, advised and shared. I received 50+ feedback to the email requesting input. Below, I have tried to make a plan based on all the points. I only have 6 minutes and I am reserving 15 seconds to walking and maybe 2/3 pauses. >> >> ======= >> >> A. Introduce myself : name, organisation - 45 seconds >> B. Key principles : 120 seconds >> • Human rights and the safeguard of diversity >> • Multistakeholder and full participation at all levels >> • The Development agenda of Internet Governance : reduce poverty, support health services, education and provide opportunities >> C : Our aims : 120 seconds >> • Enhanced cooperation >> • Affordable Internet >> • Accessibility of and on the Internet >> • Viable and capable IG processes at national levels >> D : Issues that need emphasis – 30 seconds >> • Women and youth participation in IG processes and the role of Internet as a tool for social justice and equity >> • The growing threat of unwarranted government surveillance across the globe >> E : Thanks – 30 seconds >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 00:41:23 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:41:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] Speech of Brazilian Minister at IGF opening Message-ID: Hi all, for those interested I send attached the text of the speech of Brazilian Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, at the opening ceremony. The English version follows below, right after the one in portuguese. Marília -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Discurso ministro Paulo Bernardo - Day 1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 439767 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 00:46:11 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:46:11 +0700 Subject: [governance] Speech of Brazilian Minister at IGF opening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Marilia On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi all, for those interested I send attached the text of the speech of > Brazilian Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, at the opening > ceremony. The English version follows below, right after the one in > portuguese. > > Marília > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Oct 23 01:56:38 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:56:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WS_127_=E2=80=9CMS_selection_processes?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3A_accountability_and_transparency=E2=80=9D?= In-Reply-To: <20131023005454.46021af7@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130503182433.79f5c57e@quill.bollow.ch> <20131023005454.46021af7@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20131023075638.12e49efe@swan.bollow.ch> Update: The background paper has been updated; it now contains reports from all three focal points for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on their selection processes and criteria. Greetings, Norbert Am Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:54:54 +0200 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Dear all > > Workshop 127 “MS selection processes: accountability and transparency” > (which the IGC is co-hosting with the three “focal points” for the > nongovernmental stakeholder groups in the selection of participants in > the CSTD WG on WEnhanced Cooperation) is taking place today > 14.30-16.00 in workshop Room #9 Kintamani 7. > > Here's the workshop's link on the IGF website: > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 23 02:48:10 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 08:48:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WS_127_=E2=80=9CMS_selection_processes?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3A_accountability_and_transparency=E2=80=9D?= In-Reply-To: <20131023075638.12e49efe@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20130503182433.79f5c57e@quill.bollow.ch> <20131023005454.46021af7@swan.bollow.ch> <20131023075638.12e49efe@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5267712A.7040400@apc.org> Thanks a lot for this Norbert, and for you efforts in making sure all inputs were included. Much appreciated. Anriette On 23/10/2013 07:56, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Update: The background paper has been updated; it now contains > reports from all three focal points for the CSTD Working Group on > Enhanced Cooperation on their selection processes and criteria. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:54:54 +0200 > schrieb Norbert Bollow : > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Dear all >> >> Workshop 127 “MS selection processes: accountability and transparency” >> (which the IGC is co-hosting with the three “focal points” for the >> nongovernmental stakeholder groups in the selection of participants in >> the CSTD WG on WEnhanced Cooperation) is taking place today >> 14.30-16.00 in workshop Room #9 Kintamani 7. >> >> Here's the workshop's link on the IGF website: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=127 >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Oct 23 04:57:15 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:57:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Message-ID: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. This requires: The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 05:02:02 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:02:02 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <0E3AEA63-7BAE-4114-852A-CCCB01CEEF82@gmail.com> See you there. Carol Rossini Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. > > So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. > > Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. > > This requires: > The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. > The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. > A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. > The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. > We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Oct 23 05:06:51 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:06:51 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133211C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> will try to be there. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. This requires: The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 05:13:52 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:13:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133211C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133211C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Will be there if it does'nt clash with a workshop I am moderating. In any case, I can send you some thoughts privately. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:06 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > will try to be there. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm > Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 > An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime > > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create > a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting > the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but > just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not > be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not > the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need > to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it > was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role > for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally > misplaced and ill-advised. > > So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will > need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder > groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from > 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and > Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. > > Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask > the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in > Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this > for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, > committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing > human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance > summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda > setting, participation and decision making from its inception. > > This requires: > The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required > to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information > society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a > structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries > and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. > The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in > the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. > A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future > Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it > should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. > The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of > good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the > initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders > will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, > including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the > preparatory process to final outputs. > We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is > not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of > meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and > consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and > participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society > participation. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended > to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 05:18:19 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:18:19 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes Message-ID: Dear All, This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay with them. Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC Meeting Minutes.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15085 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 23 05:18:57 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:18:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133211C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Apologies, I can't join these meetings this week. There's one issue I'd like to raise: Civil society's engagement with ITU on Internet policy. My view is we should stop attending these rather ad-hoc sessions with them. Only serves to support their very superficial approach to multi-stakeholder processes. Until ITU Council embraces CS participation in all aspects, from agenda setting to speaking in the final processes, we gain nothing except to give them a bit of PR. I believe :-) Best, Adam On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Will be there if it does'nt clash with a workshop I am moderating. In any > case, I can send you some thoughts privately. > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:06 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> will try to be there. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting >> that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing >> power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create >> a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting >> the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" >> models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but >> just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not >> be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not >> the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need >> to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it >> was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role >> for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally >> misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This >> will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other >> stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting >> tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. >> Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask >> the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in >> Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this >> for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >> committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing >> human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance >> summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda >> setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is >> required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented >> information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that >> such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all >> countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human >> rights. >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in >> the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future >> Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it >> should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of >> good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the >> initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders >> will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, >> including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the >> preparatory process to final outputs. >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is >> not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of >> meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and >> consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and >> participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society >> participation. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless >> necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended >> to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see >> http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Oct 23 05:25:37 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:25:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm writing this in a personal capacity. I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking out of the meeting." I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) constructive civil society. Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably unsustainable. Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets :) On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please > advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to > the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay > with them. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Oct 23 05:28:30 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:28:30 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133211C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Jeremy, thanks for taking the lead and agree with you to have more strategic engagement of CS on its own. However, MAG meeting is scheduled tomorrow exactly at the same time and I have to be there. If it finished earlier, then I will join the rest of the meeting. best, izumi 2013/10/23 Adam Peake > Apologies, I can't join these meetings this week. > > There's one issue I'd like to raise: Civil society's engagement with ITU > on Internet policy. My view is we should stop attending these rather > ad-hoc sessions with them. Only serves to support their very superficial > approach to multi-stakeholder processes. Until ITU Council embraces CS > participation in all aspects, from agenda setting to speaking in the final > processes, we gain nothing except to give them a bit of PR. I believe :-) > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Will be there if it does'nt clash with a workshop I am moderating. In any >> case, I can send you some thoughts privately. >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:06 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >>> will try to be there. >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >>> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >>> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow >>> lunchtime >>> >>> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting >>> that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing >>> power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create >>> a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting >>> the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" >>> models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but >>> just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not >>> be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not >>> the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need >>> to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it >>> was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role >>> for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally >>> misplaced and ill-advised. >>> >>> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This >>> will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other >>> stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting >>> tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. >>> Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >>> >>> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask >>> the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in >>> Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this >>> for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >>> >>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >>> committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing >>> human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance >>> summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda >>> setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >>> >>> This requires: >>> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is >>> required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented >>> information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that >>> such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all >>> countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human >>> rights. >>> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in >>> the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >>> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future >>> Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it >>> should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >>> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of >>> good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the >>> initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders >>> will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, >>> including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the >>> preparatory process to final outputs. >>> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings >>> is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of >>> meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and >>> consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and >>> participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society >>> participation. >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless >>> necessary. >>> >>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended >>> to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see >>> http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 05:37:21 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:37:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133211C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thank you. Will be there. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Will be there if it does'nt clash with a workshop I am moderating. In any > case, I can send you some thoughts privately. > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:06 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> will try to be there. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting >> that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing >> power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create >> a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting >> the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" >> models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but >> just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not >> be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not >> the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need >> to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it >> was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role >> for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally >> misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This >> will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other >> stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting >> tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. >> Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask >> the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in >> Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this >> for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >> committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing >> human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance >> summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda >> setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is >> required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented >> information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that >> such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all >> countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human >> rights. >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in >> the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future >> Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it >> should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of >> good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the >> initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders >> will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, >> including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the >> preparatory process to final outputs. >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is >> not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of >> meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and >> consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and >> participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society >> participation. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless >> necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended >> to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see >> http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Oct 23 05:42:47 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:42:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: First, Andrea, are you OK with the accident? I hope you have good recovery. Well, while I am in Bali, I could not attend the IGC meeting yesterday as I had to attend MAG meeting with the UN ASG during the lunch time. I also heard that it was a very rough meeting and many members left the room before closure. I have not heard yet of the real issues they had that led this walk out. But in any case, I hope we would fix this asap. izumi 2013/10/23 Andrea Glorioso > I'm writing this in a personal capacity. > > I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a > car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how > sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking > out of the meeting." > > I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that > this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) > constructive civil society. > > Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably > unsustainable. > > Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets :) > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >> with them. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Oct 23 05:53:51 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:53:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi, I'm ok, especially considering the accident could have been much more serious. Who needs extreme sports when you can bike in Brussels? I tried to take self-shots of my 4-meters flight over the car which hit me and the acrobatic landing on concrete, but you never have your Google Glasses when you need them. :) Jokes aside, thanks for the kind words (also off-list). Best, Andrea On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Izumi AIZU wrote: > First, Andrea, are you OK with the accident? I hope you have good recovery. > > Well, while I am in Bali, I could not attend the IGC meeting yesterday as > I had > to attend MAG meeting with the UN ASG during the lunch time. > > I also heard that it was a very rough meeting and many members left the > room > before closure. > > I have not heard yet of the real issues they had that led this walk out. > > But in any case, I hope we would fix this asap. > > izumi > > > > 2013/10/23 Andrea Glorioso 'cvml', 'andrea at digitalpolicy.it');>> > >> I'm writing this in a personal capacity. >> >> I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a >> car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how >> sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking >> out of the meeting." >> >> I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that >> this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) >> constructive civil society. >> >> Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably >> unsustainable. >> >> Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets >> :) >> >> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >>> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >>> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >>> with them. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep >> it in mind. >> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Oct 23 05:54:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 05:54:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62E2A92C-4FF5-4F27-AD7B-41EB502B7BB5@hserus.net> I hope you are ok? And agree on the need for unity --srs (iPad) > On 23-Oct-2013, at 5:25, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > I'm writing this in a personal capacity. > > I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking out of the meeting." > > I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) constructive civil society. > > Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably unsustainable. > > Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets :) > >> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay with them. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Oct 23 05:58:00 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:58:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: <62E2A92C-4FF5-4F27-AD7B-41EB502B7BB5@hserus.net> References: <62E2A92C-4FF5-4F27-AD7B-41EB502B7BB5@hserus.net> Message-ID: Thanks Suresh. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be differences in opinion ("united in diversity" as the motto of the EU goes). But when emotions take control, no good results can be expected. Anyway (1) I was not there and (2) this is none of my direct business anyway. I just hope long-term rationality can prevail. Andrea On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I hope you are ok? And agree on the need for unity > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-Oct-2013, at 5:25, Andrea Glorioso > > wrote: > > I'm writing this in a personal capacity. > > I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a > car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how > sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking > out of the meeting." > > I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that > this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) > constructive civil society. > > Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably > unsustainable. > > Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets :) > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >> with them. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 05:58:55 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:58:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: <62E2A92C-4FF5-4F27-AD7B-41EB502B7BB5@hserus.net> References: <62E2A92C-4FF5-4F27-AD7B-41EB502B7BB5@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hello Andrea, Wishing you of fast recovery. >From time to time misunderstanding occur, the maturity in handling it matters. All will be ok and IGC will grow strong once we bring in understanding of the Crisis. Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I hope you are ok? And agree on the need for unity > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-Oct-2013, at 5:25, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > I'm writing this in a personal capacity. > > I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a > car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how > sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking > out of the meeting." > > I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that > this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) > constructive civil society. > > Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably > unsustainable. > > Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets :) > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >> with them. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 06:04:17 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:04:17 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: <62E2A92C-4FF5-4F27-AD7B-41EB502B7BB5@hserus.net> Message-ID: Andrea, we are all so worried...hope you are okay. Agree with all your comments. YJ please forgive me for forgetting to add you..will add your name On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Hello Andrea, > > Wishing you of fast recovery. > > From time to time misunderstanding occur, the maturity in handling it > matters. > > All will be ok and IGC will grow strong once we bring in understanding of > the Crisis. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > >> I hope you are ok? And agree on the need for unity >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 23-Oct-2013, at 5:25, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >> I'm writing this in a personal capacity. >> >> I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a >> car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how >> sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking >> out of the meeting." >> >> I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that >> this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) >> constructive civil society. >> >> Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably >> unsustainable. >> >> Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets >> :) >> >> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >>> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >>> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >>> with them. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep >> it in mind. >> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Oct 23 06:11:16 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:11:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: <62E2A92C-4FF5-4F27-AD7B-41EB502B7BB5@hserus.net> Message-ID: Sala (and then I will stop bothering everyone), Please tell people there not to worry (well just a bit... the 5-years old in me likes to feel cuddled & loved ;). I'm ok for the moment, just widespread (manageable) pain and a blocked arm. Follow-up medical check tomorrow. On the work side, it would be good to know what were the real points of disagreement when emotions took over. I must admit I'm surprised, as face-to-face meetings are usually less confrontational than remote conversations. Best, Andrea On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Andrea, we are all so worried...hope you are okay. > > Agree with all your comments. > > YJ please forgive me for forgetting to add you..will add your name > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Hello Andrea, > > Wishing you of fast recovery. > > From time to time misunderstanding occur, the maturity in handling it > matters. > > All will be ok and IGC will grow strong once we bring in understanding of > the Crisis. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > > I hope you are ok? And agree on the need for unity > > --srs (iPad) > > On 23-Oct-2013, at 5:25, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > I'm writing this in a personal capacity. > > I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a > car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how > sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking > out of the meeting." > > I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that > this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) > constructive civil society. > > Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably > unsustainable. > > Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets :) > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please > advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to > the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay > with them. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Oct 23 06:33:37 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:33:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just a thought re: asynchronous options for discussions. Why not try cooperative mind mapping and/or argument mapping online tools to try and rationalize discussions and ensure stability of results? I can provide some links to existing tools if there is an interest. On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please > advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to > the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay > with them. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 07:27:54 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 07:27:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Successful staging of IGF 2013 Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Roundtable - The Broadband (Access) Dilemma Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-posting) IGF 2013 Workshop #33: Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Roundtable - The Broadband (Access) Dilemma *Organized by the Internet Society Trinidad and Tobago Chapter (ISOC-TT) with support from the Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society (PICISOC). *Case Study Highlight from APNIC ISIF Asia Grant Award: Pacific Islands Schools, Connectivity, Education, and Solar (PISCES) Project by iSolutions (Micronesia) Photos at: https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/ch500089fdpq4qhm3cgo9nvnbus Video Recording at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7GPMnffXWk Thanks to all for their support ... we are anticipating your continued and ongoing support moving forward as we work towards highlighting the issues and challenges facing SIDS and working together to develop actionable recommendations and solutions. --- Best Regards, Tracy F. Hackshaw | T&T Mobile: +1 868 678 8710 | US/Google Voice: +1 786 273 9344 | tracyhackshaw at gmail.com | www.OurFutureisNow.info | Skype: hackshawt / tracyhackshaw at hotmail.com | Google: tracyhackshaw | Yahoo: tracyhackshaw | ---------------------------- Social Footprint Google Me: http://goo.gl/p4xs6 | Google+: http://plus.ly/tracy | Google Profile: http://goo.gl/8j2xk | LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tracyhackshaw | Quora: http://www.quora.com/Tracy-Hackshaw | Twitter: @thackshaw | facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tracyhackshaw | Storify: http://storify.com/tracyhackshaw | Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tracyhackshaw/ | Scoop.it: http://www.scoop.it/u/tracy-hackshaw | Instagram: http://instagram.com/tracyhackshaw | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Oct 23 07:48:24 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 17:18:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133211C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: I'll be there, though I might have to leave early. Can we still make changes to the letter? If so, could we give the last sentence a more concrete twist and change it from: "If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation". to "If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, it is crucial that civil society is centrally involved at every step of the decision-making process"? Thanks and best, Anja On 23 October 2013 15:07, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Thank you. Will be there. > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Will be there if it does'nt clash with a workshop I am moderating. In any >> case, I can send you some thoughts privately. >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:06 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >>> will try to be there. >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >>> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >>> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow >>> lunchtime >>> >>> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting >>> that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing >>> power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create >>> a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting >>> the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" >>> models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but >>> just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not >>> be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not >>> the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need >>> to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it >>> was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role >>> for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally >>> misplaced and ill-advised. >>> >>> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This >>> will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other >>> stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting >>> tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. >>> Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >>> >>> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask >>> the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in >>> Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this >>> for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >>> >>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, >>> committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing >>> human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance >>> summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda >>> setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >>> >>> This requires: >>> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is >>> required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented >>> information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that >>> such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all >>> countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human >>> rights. >>> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in >>> the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >>> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future >>> Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it >>> should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >>> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of >>> good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the >>> initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders >>> will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, >>> including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the >>> preparatory process to final outputs. >>> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings >>> is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of >>> meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and >>> consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and >>> participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society >>> participation. >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless >>> necessary. >>> >>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended >>> to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see >>> http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yjpark21 at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 08:00:46 2013 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (Youn Jung Park) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:00:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: <62E2A92C-4FF5-4F27-AD7B-41EB502B7BB5@hserus.net> Message-ID: > Andrea, we are all so worried...hope you are okay. Hope you better soon as well. > Agree with all your comments. > > YJ please forgive me for forgetting to add you..will add your name No problem! Cheers, YJ > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: >> >> Hello Andrea, >> >> Wishing you of fast recovery. >> >> From time to time misunderstanding occur, the maturity in handling it matters. >> >> All will be ok and IGC will grow strong once we bring in understanding of the Crisis. >> >> Sonigitu Ekpe >> >> Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 >> "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < suresh at hserus.net> wrote: >>> >>> I hope you are ok? And agree on the need for unity >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 23-Oct-2013, at 5:25, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >>> >>>> I'm writing this in a personal capacity. >>>> >>>> I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking out of the meeting." >>>> >>>> I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) constructive civil society. >>>> >>>> Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably unsustainable. >>>> >>>> Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets :) >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay with them. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. >>>> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >>>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Elvana.THACI at coe.int Wed Oct 23 08:37:51 2013 From: Elvana.THACI at coe.int (THACI Elvana) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:37:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on a Guide on Human Rights for Internet Users Message-ID: <2BC8C1F8EE620E4DBF566BCF5F804CE338B62090@V-Linguistix02.key.coe.int> Dear IGC members, The Council of Europe is working on a Guide on Human Rights for Internet Users (attached). The draft Guide aims at raising Internet users' awareness about human rights and fundamental freedoms online, providing a tool for people to use and rely upon when facing difficulties in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, focusing government efforts to respect, protect and promote human rights online and encouraging the private sector to act responsibly and with respect for people they contract with. As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council of Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the draft Guide to be sent to us, at the latest by 15 November 2013, by E-mail to ig at coe.int and/or elvana.thaci at coe.int. The draft Guide is also available at this address. Elvana Thaçi Administrator Internet Governance Unit Information Society and Action Against Crime Directorate DG I - Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Tel. + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98 Fax. + 33 (0) 3 88 41 27 05 E-mail: elvana.thaci at coe.int Internet: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Council of Europe Draft Guide on Human Rights for Internet Users.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 39707 bytes Desc: Council of Europe Draft Guide on Human Rights for Internet Users.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Council of Europe Guide on Human Rights for Internet Users.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 223777 bytes Desc: Draft Council of Europe Guide on Human Rights for Internet Users.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 10:37:02 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:37:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy, On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > models. CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 23 11:09:23 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:39:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5267E6A3.60506@itforchange.net> Hi Sala Thanks for the minutes. There was also this suggestion to form an opt in group of interested IGC members that will consider the 'state of the IGC' and how to strengthen it, and if necessary, and if it would be potentially helpful, to revisit and, if needed, re-draft, some overall substantial principles and also processes, for the IGC.. It would be kind of a continuation of the onsite meeting that tried to address this issue, while of course taking in all of the other members who may be interested to come in. Maybe, after almost 10 years of existence it would be useful to try to refocus IGC's politics and principles, supported by any improvements in process if found necessary. There was another suggestion, that the moderators take a more pro active role in this phase - whatever it could mean (although some clear suggestions were given) parminder On Wednesday 23 October 2013 02:48 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please > advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add > to the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone > is okay with them. > > Kind Regards, > Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 12:37:33 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:37:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [tpp-allies] Public Interest Coalition Opposes Fast-Track Authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership References: Message-ID: <92E6C79C-FF04-4BDE-B1D4-06B3A1D50086@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Maira Sutton > Date: October 24, 2013 at 12:23:44 AM GMT+8 > To: "tpp-allies" > Subject: [tpp-allies] Public Interest Coalition Opposes Fast-Track Authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership > Reply-To: Maira Sutton > > (FYI We are having this letter hand-delivered in Capitol Hill this week as many of my colleagues are there to meet with Congress members and attend the massive rally against NSA spying.) > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/public-interest-coalition-letter-no-fast-track-authority-trans-pacific-partnership > > Public Interest Coalition Opposes Fast-Track Authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership > > EFF has joined a broad coalition of 14 public interest groups today in delivering a letter to members of Congress, urging U.S. lawmakers not to grant the Obama administration "fast-track" authority for trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is a complex multi-national agreement that could extend restrictive laws around the world and rewrite international rules of copyright enforcement in ways that could further restrict online rights. > > Fast-track authority, also known as "trade promotion authority," requires Congress to waive its Constitutional authority to review treaties, limiting its ability to seek fixes and amendments. In the case of agreements negotiated in near-total secrecy, like the TPP, granting fast-track authority would create a dangerous lack of accountability. > [...] > Link to PDF letter here: https://www.eff.org/document/civil-society-coalition-letter-opposing-fast-track-authority > List of signing organizations: Amnesty International, Demand Progress, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Press Action Fund, Free Software Foundation, Gene Ethics, Global Exchange, IOGT International, Knowledge Ecology International, New Media Rights, OpenMedia, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, and RedGe. > > -- > Maira Sutton > Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation - www.eff.org > maira at eff.org > Tel: 415.436.9333 x175 > > :: Defending Freedom in the Digital World :: > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com. > > To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=44006011 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to leave-44006011-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 12:53:26 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:53:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the "technical" community. Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore, I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into seeing those norms upheld. Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly, so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and accurate user guide for... users! It is my sense that they are mostly impressed with impressing their peers, as is often the case with minority groups of meritocrats. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of concern to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. I'm just saying -- "on equal footing" my dear! Mawaki On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, McTim wrote: > Jeremy, > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting > that > > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will > create a > > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting > the > > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > > models. > > CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it > gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 13:09:59 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:09:59 +0700 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Decidedly, the Bali trip is a priesthood for me. Kenya Airways has experienced problems: -departing from Kinshasa, the flight was delayed for 3 hours; -Nairobi, the connection to Bangkok has been postponed due to a failure of pressurisation in the aircraft; I just arrived in Bangkok with a delay for connection with Jakarta; I leave tomorrow morning at 6.30 Bangkok and Jakarta to Bali. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* * *Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/10/23 Mawaki Chango > Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the > "technical" community. > Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs earlier > --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. > > McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it > say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means > "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore, > I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but > I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was > also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative > tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into > seeing those norms upheld. > > Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best > interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me > since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that > designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly, > so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's > no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and > accurate user guide for... users! It is my sense that they are mostly > impressed with impressing their peers, as is often the case with minority > groups of meritocrats. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the > opportunity to shift from "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should > be a matter of concern to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. > > I'm just saying -- "on equal footing" my dear! > > Mawaki > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, McTim wrote: > >> Jeremy, >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> wrote: >> > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting >> that >> > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing >> > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will >> create a >> > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting >> the >> > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" >> > models. >> >> CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it >> gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 13:16:52 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 01:16:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Workshop Implications of ECHR decision Delfi v Estonia (24.11, 1300-1400) In-Reply-To: <1ABBCED8BA1770409E3FAC64F95D8F90010404D3@JURIST.torv.ee> References: <1ABBCED8BA1770409E3FAC64F95D8F90010404D3@JURIST.torv.ee> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Karmen Turk Date: 24 October 2013 00:03 Subject: Workshop Implications of ECHR decision Delfi v Estonia (24.11, 1300-1400) To: "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>, "expression at ipjustice.org" < expression at ipjustice.org> Cc: "maxsenges at google.com" , "angelacdaly at gmail.com" < angelacdaly at gmail.com>, Michael Harris , John Kampfner Hi all,**** Now the room is allocated and speakers confirmed, thus the announcement regards the workshop follows:**** ** ** *DC **Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet* ** ** ** is glad to invite you to an *ad hoc* work-shop on **** * * *Thursday, 24.11.2013* during lunch time from *13.00 till 14.00** **in Kintamani 1:*** * * *Implications of ECHR 10.10.2013 decision **Delfi vs Estonia* ** ** ** The distinguished speakers will be:**** *Michael Harris* from Index on Censorship**** *John Kampfner* adviser to Google (arriving later from another meeting)**** *Karmen Turk*, from Uni. of Tartu, representative of Delfi in ECHR**** And everyone in the room…**** ** ** The discussions could concentrate on the matter from the point of view of :* *** *FoE vs rights of others* *Anonymity vs real name policy * *Liability of **content **author vs liability of intermediary (host)* *Good practices vs censorship*** * * *PS*: in the second part of the meeting, general matters of Dynamic Coalition of Freedom of Expression will be discussed (including chairmanship, projects for the next year etc).**** ** ** (if not familiar with the case, here are some excellent overviews by Article 19, Guardian, Index on Censorship, Triniti )**** ** ** For persons not present in IGF: Remote participation under Day 3 and Live transcripts ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Hope to see many of you there…**** ** ** Karmen Turk and Angela Daly**** on behalf of DC Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet**** ** ** ** ** ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 13:57:01 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:57:01 +0700 Subject: [governance] NCUC @ IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am currently in Bangkok where we arrived at 22.35 I left Bangkok on Thursday 6.30 to Jakarta and Jakarta to Bali. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* * *Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/10/23 William Drake > Hello, > > The Noncommercial Users Constituency in ICANN invites interested fellow > travelers to consider attending the following workshops, starting today: > > Wednesday October 23, 16:30-18:00, Room 8, Kintamani 2 > *WS 249 Civil Society in ICANN’s Multistakeholderism: The GNSO > Case [joint between NCSG, NCUC and NPOC]* > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=249 > > > Thursday October 24, 11:00-12:30, Room 10, Kintamani 6 > *WS 253 The Debate on ‘Closed’ Generic Top Level Domains* > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_accomplish_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=253 > > > Friday October 25, 9:00-10:30, Room 3, Nusa Dua Hall 3 > *No. 129 Human Rights & Multi-Stakeholder Governance: ICANN Experience* > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=129 > > > Friday October 25, 11:00-12:30, Room 9, Kintamani 7 > *WS 282 Internet/Telecom ‘Convergence’ and Global Internet Governance * > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=282 > > > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 16:56:48 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 04:56:48 +0800 Subject: [governance] NCUC @ IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Schombe, Long way to travel from DR Congo. Reminds me of a friend who was travelling from Hawaii to Senegal and had his flight cancelled the entire time. [Traveller's nightmare] I suppose you might be in time for the gala and the last day of the IGF. We sympathise with your travel hiccups and hope you will get here okay. You can watch all the sessions on You Tube through the link that Tracy shared earlier with the group to catch up and read transcripts. This will be bring you up to speed on the past two days so far and if you have access in the airports, might be able to stream in. Best Regards, Sala Safe Travels, Sala On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > I am currently in Bangkok where we arrived at 22.35 > > I left Bangkok on Thursday 6.30 to Jakarta and Jakarta to Bali. > > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC > COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* > * > *Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > > > 2013/10/23 William Drake > >> Hello, >> >> The Noncommercial Users Constituency in ICANN invites interested fellow >> travelers to consider attending the following workshops, starting today: >> >> Wednesday October 23, 16:30-18:00, Room 8, Kintamani 2 >> *WS 249 Civil Society in ICANN’s Multistakeholderism: The GNSO >> Case [joint between NCSG, NCUC and NPOC]* >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=249 >> >> >> Thursday October 24, 11:00-12:30, Room 10, Kintamani 6 >> *WS 253 The Debate on ‘Closed’ Generic Top Level Domains* >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_accomplish_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=253 >> >> >> Friday October 25, 9:00-10:30, Room 3, Nusa Dua Hall 3 >> *No. 129 Human Rights & Multi-Stakeholder Governance: ICANN Experience* >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=129 >> >> >> Friday October 25, 11:00-12:30, Room 9, Kintamani 7 >> *WS 282 Internet/Telecom ‘Convergence’ and Global Internet Governance * >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/workshop_2013_status_list_view.php?xpsltipq_je=282 >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Oct 23 17:06:53 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:06:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4423DF18-2C7C-45CC-894F-72CDCF87229F@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the "technical" community. > Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. > > McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore, I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into seeing those norms upheld. > > Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly, so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and accurate user guide for... users! There are also inherent limits what can be accomplished based on principles which are basically voluntary in nature. For example, even if there were common, global agreement on social norms regarding unsolicited commercial email, the mechanisms that would be provided from an entirely techno-centric Internet cooperation system would be limited to various voluntary measures of increasing complexity, in the typical "arms race" of increasing subterfuge and improved detection and mitigation. These not really a solutions at all, just a sequence of coping strategies which result in increasing costs and pain for the users. Whereas, if there were a common and global agreement on acceptable social norms in this area (hypothetically), and given engagement of all parties (including governments), there likely would be far superior mechanisms available which provide a higher level of assurance and lower costs to users globally. i.e. it is not at all clear that an Internet limited solely to voluntary technical mechanisms (and based on the technical communities particular sense of social norms) can actually elevate itself to the global platform for enabling social and economic benefits that that mankind actually deserves... > .. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of concern to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. Agreed. I would hope that a "techno-centric" shift is _not_ what is occurring via the "coalition initiative" discussed yesterday, but also believe that healthy skepticism (plus a willingness to constructively engage) is quite prudent whenever faced with any situation of high ambiguity. My best wishes to civil society in your efforts to engage and clarify things, as it is my hope that we are simply seeing the consequences of a fast-moving and dynamic situation (as opposed to actual departure from basic values of open and equal participation that are necessary for legitimacy of such an initiative.) /John Disclaimers: My views alone (and I may have had my membership in the Church of Technological Utopianism revoked as a result of sending this email ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 23 17:51:07 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:51:07 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: At 18:53 23/10/2013, Mawaki Chango wrote: >Techies cannot write a clean and accurate user guide for... users! >It is my sense that they are mostly impressed with impressing their >peers, as is often the case with minority groups of meritocrats. So >yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from >"government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of >concern to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. +1 >I'm just saying -- "on equal footing" my dear! Is there not a formula to say "on equal tonguing". I start being surprised by this non multilinguistic multi-stakeholderism. Until now techies dealt with machines only. This is no more true with the semantic layers. We are now dealing with a part of your brain (and, as the NSA shows it, of your person). The first of the human rights is to speak and be taught it his langage (denying it is assimilated to cultural genocide); then there is the right to understand others; then the right not to hear others' noise; etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29 At 19:22 23/10/2013, Poncelet Ileleji wrote: >Within the CS community in my opinion our role is to ensure the >processes to be inclusive all voices should be heard, dialogues >should be inclusive, agendas and communiques should reflect the true >spirit of "multistakeholderism". Just a minute. Multi-stakeholderism is not only a way to be "heard", but a decision process that replace democratic votes in polycratic process where the multiplicty of stakes, groups of diffent sizes, and kinds of interest, etc. calls for a more adapted process. However, it should never by-pass a participation to the decision (not just hearings) at least through an appeal capacity. The technical monopoly, the Internet Consortium that Jeremy talks about, is preparing is based on RFC 6852 "hearing" and lack of appeal. This is a fundamental error: if a technical disagreement cannt be solved among techies, it will result in a technical fork (i.e. the balkanization of the Internet). jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Oct 23 18:02:16 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:02:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Civil society perspective on governance models (was Re: Ad hoc...) In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131024000216.3f918a4d@swan.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > Jeremy, > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community > > meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) > > like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new > > coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the > > pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" > > multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models. > > CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it > gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? I'm with Jeremy on this point. We should absolutely avoid deciding our substantive positions regarding governance models on the basis of what would give a few of us civil society participants in the global Internet governance circus a bit of power. Rather, we need to work towards forms of governance that are based on truly democratic power and which involve strong accountability and checks and balances. I do not see any way in which these necessary requirements could be achieved while “reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.” Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 18:41:26 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:41:26 +0800 Subject: [governance] Thoughts on the Alleged Power Grab: Is Internet Governance Hanging by a Thread? Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly, I am curious about this reference to "power grab" by the technical community. As someone who was not in the room and do not have clear details about the situation, I think formulating a response without clearly knowing the issues is pointless. When I read Jeremy's email about a power grab by the Technical community, I am wondering first of all about the aspects of this "power grab". There is a rumour about a power grab by the technical community. If the "power grab" is true, then I am assuming that this is a response to threats of institutional frameworks governing or interfering with the current status quo. Personally, I feel that this is anti thesis to "enhanced cooperation". If for some reason, ICANN or the US Government is behind the scenes in instigating this move, then I would suggest that it is very bad strategy and will cause more damage than harm to the current status quo. [I am curious as to whether this is a response because of analysis that the demand by the Brazil Government for greater international oversight of ICANN is a real and emerging threat. I have heard that one individual was denied a visa to attend the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires and that this would be the case for all those applying for visas in Buenos Aires for this meeting. Before we get our feathers ruffled, I would point out that even for this 8th IGF, which almost very nearly did not take place because of funding and other issues was a temporary hurdle and the organisers through the IGF Secretariat, sponsors were able to address and save the day. I have also asked a friend of mine who is a lawyer in Argentina to find out more. In the meantime, we both feel that this is over exaggeration. On the issue of Brazil openly declaring that it wants greater international oversight for ICANN is of course the notion that ICANN should not be under the US but rather exist under some sort of institutional framework. In 1998, Milton wrote an article on some of the dynamics back then: http://www.isoc.org/inet98/proceedings/5a/5a_1.htm and offered his perspective on the matter. Negotiation and diplomacy is needed - not using a sledge hammer to pry open a peanut. To pacify and engage those who have fears (legitimate fears) is to engage in good faith dialogue where parties are able to hear and understand where people are coming from as opposed to growing suspicion and distrust. In fact, I had in one of my interventions from the floor this week mentioned that you cannot engage in enhanced cooperation if there is suspicion and mistrust. At this point in time, the issue on the forefront in most government's mind is "Security" and there is a recognition that a critical element of this is in having cooperation where it comes to addressing vulnerabilities. Technical organisations are well placed to show functional engagement in the areas that they are involved in. As RIRs work towards moving towards harmonised Whois IP look ups and as both ICANN, RIRs and other organisations work towards addressing "Whois Accuracy" they make valuable contribution to the Internet Universe and Ecosystem. If the concern by the technical community is fear that there will be an institutional framework that will take over the management of critical internet resources, I will say that we need to openly talk about that fear. This is what open discussion in the IGF is about engaging in good and honest dialogue rather than retreating to our caves. Frankly on the issue of cross collaboration between standards bodies, there is a bridge already built to ensure cooperation and understanding. Even if we examine governments and their priority areas, in the year 2014, there is increasing drought, food, water and energy crisis that have caused a shift in priorities. Economic collapse and depleting revenues, are happening all around the world. I know that we are all familiar with the status in Europe but it is also happening else where. For instance, according to the Australian Government, the Australian economy has been showing positive signs of growth (real GDP growth of 2.75% in 2013-2014 and 3% in 2014-2015, powerful global forces and the once high Australian dollar "savaged" their Budget revenues. 2013 has been marked as the year that Australia had its second largest revenue write down since the Great Depression. Expected tax receipts for 2012-2013 were written down by $17 billion. Since October 2012, the write down over the next 4 years is expected to be written down for $60 billion.Company taxes, capital gains taxes and resource taxes have all been hit. Of course where revenue base is hit, the next response is "taxing" multinational corporates such as Apple and Google etc. With open data as the new wave. VeriSign reports in its recent quarterly update that Transparency Market Research highlighted that Global Big Data market was worth USD $6.3 billion in 2012 and is expected to reach USD $48.3 billion by 2018, at a compound annual growth rate of 40.5 percent from2012 to 2018. Instead of getting its "panties in a twist", the US Government and the technical community should be showcasing their strengths in terms of regulatory mechanisms over entities. Countries through their governments can work together to harmonize their laws to address improper conduct of MNCs and non-state actors on the Internet. On one hand there is already example of this taking place, such as the Budapest Convention. 87 countries have signed the Seoul Framework which seeks to strengthen global collaboration in efforts to combat cyber-crime. This is 45% of countries within the UN. The ‘Seoul Framework’ is based on consensus of a need for greater cooperation among developed and developing nations to curtail growing threats to cyber-security. Instead of assuming that "cooperation" is a threat to their space, analysts need to very clearly show all the variables before drawing any conclusion. As someone who is involved in drafting national strategy, policy, law in this area in my country, I can say that this form of cooperation is not about "control" or on issues of "oversight" but more on practical engagements by diverse stakeholders in the Internet economy.There is already inter-government cooperation, inter- CERT cooperation there is room for enhanced cooperation between other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Forum in Bali is not without excitement as usual. There is a rumour about a power grab by the technical community. If the "power grab" is true, then I am assuming that this is a response to threats of institutional frameworks governing or interfering with the current status quo. Personally, I feel that this is anti thesis to "enhanced cooperation". If for some reason, ICANN or the US Government is behind the scenes in instigating this move, then I would suggest that it is very bad strategy and will cause more damage than harm to the current status quo. [I am curious as to whether this is a response because of analysis that the demand by the Brazil Government for greater international oversight of ICANN is a real and emerging threat. I have heard that one individual was denied a visa to attend the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires and that this would be the case for all those applying for visas in Buenos Aires for this meeting. Before we get our feathers ruffled, I would point out that even for this 8th IGF, which almost very nearly did not take place because of funding and other issues was a temporary hurdle and the organisers through the IGF Secretariat, sponsors were able to address and save the day. I have also asked a friend of mine who is a lawyer in Argentina to find out more. In the meantime, we both feel that this is over exaggeration. On the issue of Brazil openly declaring that it wants greater international oversight for ICANN is of course the notion that ICANN should not be under the US but rather exist under some sort of institutional framework. In 1998, Milton wrote an article on some of the dynamics back then. I have mixed thoughts about his take on the matter. Negotiation and diplomacy is needed - not using a sledge hammer to pry open a peanut. To pacify and engage those who have fears (legitimate fears) is to engage in good faith dialogue where parties are able to hear and understand where people are coming from as opposed to growing suspicion and distrust. In fact, I had in one of my interventions from the floor this week mentioned that you cannot engage in enhanced cooperation if there is suspicion and mistrust. At this point in time, the issue on the forefront in most government's mind is "Security" and there is a recognition that a critical element of this is in having cooperation where it comes to addressing vulnerabilities. Technical organisations are well placed to show functional engagement in the areas that they are involved in. As RIRs work towards moving towards harmonised Whois IP look ups and as both ICANN, RIRs and other organisations work towards addressing "Whois Accuracy" they make valuable contribution to the Internet Universe and Ecosystem. If the concern by the technical community is fear that there will be an institutional framework that will take over the management of critical internet resources, I will say that we need to openly talk about that fear. This is what open discussion in the IGF is about engaging in good and honest dialogue rather than retreating to our caves. Frankly on the issue of cross collaboration between standards bodies, there is a bridge already built to ensure cooperation and understanding. Even if we examine governments and their priority areas, in the year 2014, there is increasing drought, food, water and energy crisis that have caused a shift in priorities. Economic collapse and depleting revenues, are happening all around the world. I know that we are all familiar with the status in Europe but it is also happening else where. For instance, according to the Australian Government, the Australian economy has been showing positive signs of growth (real GDP growth of 2.75% in 2013-2014 and 3% in 2014-2015, powerful global forces and the once high Australian dollar "savaged" their Budget revenues. 2013 has been marked as the year that Australia had its second largest revenue write down since the Great Depression. Expected tax receipts for 2012-2013 were written down by $17 billion. Since October 2012, the write down over the next 4 years is expected to be written down for $60 billion.Company taxes, capital gains taxes and resource taxes have all been hit. Of course where revenue base is hit, the next response is "taxing" multinational corporates such as Apple and Google etc. With open data as the new wave. VeriSign reports in its recent quarterly update that Transparency Market Research highlighted that Global Big Data market was worth USD $6.3 billion in 2012 and is expected to reach USD $48.3 billion by 2018, at a compound annual growth rate of 40.5 percent from2012 to 2018. Instead of getting its "panties in a twist", the US Government and the technical community should be showcasing their strengths in terms of regulatory mechanisms over entities. Countries through their governments can work together to harmonize their laws to address improper conduct of MNCs and non-state actors on the Internet. On one hand there is already example of this taking place, such as the Budapest Convention. 87 countries have signed the Seoul Framework which seeks to strengthen global collaboration in efforts to combat cyber-crime. This is 45% of countries within the UN. The ‘Seoul Framework’ is based on consensus of a need for greater cooperation among developed and developing nations to curtail growing threats to cyber-security. Instead of assuming that "cooperation" is a threat to their space, analysts need to very clearly show all the variables before drawing any conclusion As someone who is involved in drafting national strategy, policy, law in this area in my country, I can say that this form of cooperation is not about "control" or on issues of "oversight" but more on practical engagements by diverse stakeholders in the Internet economy.There is already inter-government cooperation, inter- CERT cooperation there is room for enhanced cooperation between other stakeholders. If anything, in this season, the technical opportunity has an opportunity to be champions in the battle to protect global public interest and assist governments and communities in addressing vulnerabilities rather then being suspicious. If we as a community talk about these fears, we can address the concerns in proportionate manner rather then compromising and threatening bridges that have taken so long to build. Let's not get our panties in a twist! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 18:45:11 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:45:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <4423DF18-2C7C-45CC-894F-72CDCF87229F@istaff.org> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <4423DF18-2C7C-45CC-894F-72CDCF87229F@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:06 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 24, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the > "technical" community. > > Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs > earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. > > > > McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it > say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means > "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore, > I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but > I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was > also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative > tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into > seeing those norms upheld. > > > > Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best > interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me > since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that > designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly, > so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's > no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and > accurate user guide for... users! > > There are also inherent limits what can be accomplished based on > principles which > are basically voluntary in nature. For example, even if there were > common, global > agreement on social norms regarding unsolicited commercial email, the > mechanisms > that would be provided from an entirely techno-centric Internet > cooperation system > would be limited to various voluntary measures of increasing complexity, > in the typical > "arms race" of increasing subterfuge and improved detection and > mitigation. These > not really a solutions at all, just a sequence of coping strategies which > result in > increasing costs and pain for the users. > > Whereas, if there were a common and global agreement on acceptable social > norms in > this area (hypothetically), and given engagement of all parties (including > governments), > there likely would be far superior mechanisms available which provide a > higher level of > assurance and lower costs to users globally. > > i.e. it is not at all clear that an Internet limited solely to voluntary > technical mechanisms > (and based on the technical communities particular sense of social norms) > can actually > elevate itself to the global platform for enabling social and economic > benefits that that > mankind actually deserves... > I cannot agree with you more. Case in point: governments have been stepping in one way or the other, including in the United States of America of all places, to back the effort of establishing authentication and identity management mechanisms on the Internet with the force of the "full faith and credit" (my adapted characterization) which only they can wield at the scale of large populations of private citizens and individual users. mawaki > > > .. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from > "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of concern to > CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. > > Agreed. I would hope that a "techno-centric" shift is _not_ what is > occurring via the > "coalition initiative" discussed yesterday, but also believe that healthy > skepticism > (plus a willingness to constructively engage) is quite prudent whenever > faced with any > situation of high ambiguity. My best wishes to civil society in your > efforts to engage > and clarify things, as it is my hope that we are simply seeing the > consequences of a > fast-moving and dynamic situation (as opposed to actual departure from > basic values > of open and equal participation that are necessary for legitimacy of such > an initiative.) > > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone (and I may have had my membership in the > Church of > Technological Utopianism revoked as a result of > sending this email ;-) > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Oct 23 19:05:49 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:05:49 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org><4423DF18-2C7C-45CC-894F-72CDCF87229F@istaff.org> Message-ID: <36BFE4E5B3A64B8A9C45078C54B3AA54@Toshiba> I have to agree wholeheartedly with John Curran when he wrote - “ Agreed. I would hope that a "techno-centric" shift is _not_ what is occurring via the "coalition initiative" discussed yesterday, but also believe that healthy skepticism (plus a willingness to constructively engage) is quite prudent whenever faced with any situation of high ambiguity. My best wishes to civil society in your efforts to engage and clarify things, as it is my hope that we are simply seeing the consequences of a fast-moving and dynamic situation (as opposed to actual departure from basic values of open and equal participation that are necessary for legitimacy of such an initiative.)” Ian Peter From: Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 9:45 AM To: John Curran Cc: Internet Governance ; McTim ; Jeremy Malcolm ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:06 PM, John Curran wrote: On Oct 24, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the "technical" community. > Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. > > McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore, I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into seeing those norms upheld. > > Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly, so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and accurate user guide for... users! There are also inherent limits what can be accomplished based on principles which are basically voluntary in nature. For example, even if there were common, global agreement on social norms regarding unsolicited commercial email, the mechanisms that would be provided from an entirely techno-centric Internet cooperation system would be limited to various voluntary measures of increasing complexity, in the typical "arms race" of increasing subterfuge and improved detection and mitigation. These not really a solutions at all, just a sequence of coping strategies which result in increasing costs and pain for the users. Whereas, if there were a common and global agreement on acceptable social norms in this area (hypothetically), and given engagement of all parties (including governments), there likely would be far superior mechanisms available which provide a higher level of assurance and lower costs to users globally. i.e. it is not at all clear that an Internet limited solely to voluntary technical mechanisms (and based on the technical communities particular sense of social norms) can actually elevate itself to the global platform for enabling social and economic benefits that that mankind actually deserves... I cannot agree with you more. Case in point: governments have been stepping in one way or the other, including in the United States of America of all places, to back the effort of establishing authentication and identity management mechanisms on the Internet with the force of the "full faith and credit" (my adapted characterization) which only they can wield at the scale of large populations of private citizens and individual users. mawaki > .. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of concern to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. Agreed. I would hope that a "techno-centric" shift is _not_ what is occurring via the "coalition initiative" discussed yesterday, but also believe that healthy skepticism (plus a willingness to constructively engage) is quite prudent whenever faced with any situation of high ambiguity. My best wishes to civil society in your efforts to engage and clarify things, as it is my hope that we are simply seeing the consequences of a fast-moving and dynamic situation (as opposed to actual departure from basic values of open and equal participation that are necessary for legitimacy of such an initiative.) /John Disclaimers: My views alone (and I may have had my membership in the Church of Technological Utopianism revoked as a result of sending this email ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 19:08:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:08:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> Thanks for this John... I have a couple of comments which are rather to do with MSism overall rather than the below which is good as far as it goes... and given their nature I think they are perhaps worth circulating to the large Governance list. The first is that the MS model in itself is exclusive/exclusionary in that many potential/useful/even necessary voices aren't included for a variety of reasons--they don't know about the process, they don't have the (language/conceptual/technical etc.) skills/confidence/technology to participate. In these instances a the "passive" MS model doesn't work since what is needed is a pro-active engagement which animates/enables the non-participant and thus gives them the means to contribute... There are I know, a lot of issues with this and to a degree the above goes to the heart of the MS approach but it remains a very very (and to my mind potentially lethal limitation of MSism etc. The second is that the model is one that strives for/even requires "consensus"... That being the case there are tremendous incentives towards consensus and equally if not more significant, disincentives against divergence/conflict. While in some instances consensus is desireable and useful it is not something on which one can build unless one chooses to try to artificially bury/bulldoze dissenting/diverging voices and non-commensurable interests (which in the real world in many many and not insignificant issues are necessary... I think it is important to recognize the difference between "consensus" as in everyone finding a basis of agreement and for example, brokerage where there are tradeoffs between conflicting positions or as another example where there is a simple agreement to disagree (the notion of the loyal opposition for example... and where the political democratic process allows time for the evolution of dominant/majority positions for example. I had a very useful discussion yesterday with Constance Bomellier on this issue and what I realized in the course of the discussion is the degree to which the MS model is at its core, its very DNA a techie's/engineer's model with its impatience with complexity and "fuzziness", it's belief that there are single simple solutions to very complex problems (and diverse interests), its drive for a single simple outcome when many outcomes have to be seen as iterative, long term and even self-reflexive processes. I don't deny the value of the MS model for technical issues, but I see extreme danger in an unthinking and uncritical stampede toward MSism in policy areas way way beyond the technical as is so evident here at the IGF. Rough consensus and running code would not have allowed for the long term process that overcame child labour, created the public health measures that conquered typhus, nor would it have ended slavery. Whether it can ensure an open, transparent, equitable, rule of law based and human rights protecting Internet for all is to my mind a very very open question and certainly something to be discussed rather than assumed. When challenged here at the IGF and elsewhere, the proponents of the MS model indicate that of course, MSism is a constituent element of democratic governance... I'm still waiting for anyone to give a coherent explanation of what that relationship is in a practical sense. M -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:16 PM To: michael gurstein Subject: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" I would be interested in your suggestions, comments, edits. /John === One view of the "multistakeholder engagement model" . Open and Inclusive: Discussions are open to all and structured to encourage the broadest range of relevant inputs from all interested parties. Input provided is valued and heard by all. All documents are freely available online. Processes for public comment and remote participation are provided wherever feasible, and without requirements for participation other than decorum. . Consensus-based: Discussions allow for all views to be considered and addressed, leading towards common understanding and consensus among participants. Discussions are structured to avoid domination by any community of interest. . Transparent and Accountable: Processes for discussions and decision- making are documented, publicly available, and followed. Easily accessible records of decisions and the materials used for reaching those decisions are provided. Due process is provided to appeal decisions where processes were not followed. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 23 16:19:07 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:19:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 19:48:38 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 07:48:38 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" In-Reply-To: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> References: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5E398B89-1717-44E4-8A1C-BC4147C677C7@gmail.com> Micheal, Your observations are pertinent. Check out workshop 212 at 9:00am tomorrow morning. George -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WS 212.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 98653 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Oct 24, 2013, at 7:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for this John... I have a couple of comments which are rather to do > with MSism overall rather than the below which is good as far as it goes... > and given their nature I think they are perhaps worth circulating to the > large Governance list. > > The first is that the MS model in itself is exclusive/exclusionary in that > many potential/useful/even necessary voices aren't included for a variety of > reasons--they don't know about the process, they don't have the > (language/conceptual/technical etc.) skills/confidence/technology to > participate. In these instances a the "passive" MS model doesn't work since > what is needed is a pro-active engagement which animates/enables the > non-participant and thus gives them the means to contribute... There are I > know, a lot of issues with this and to a degree the above goes to the heart > of the MS approach but it remains a very very (and to my mind potentially > lethal limitation of MSism etc. > > The second is that the model is one that strives for/even requires > "consensus"... That being the case there are tremendous incentives towards > consensus and equally if not more significant, disincentives against > divergence/conflict. While in some instances consensus is desireable and > useful it is not something on which one can build unless one chooses to try > to artificially bury/bulldoze dissenting/diverging voices and > non-commensurable interests (which in the real world in many many and not > insignificant issues are necessary... > > I think it is important to recognize the difference between "consensus" as > in everyone finding a basis of agreement and for example, brokerage where > there are tradeoffs between conflicting positions or as another example > where there is a simple agreement to disagree (the notion of the loyal > opposition for example... and where the political democratic process allows > time for the evolution of dominant/majority positions for example. > > I had a very useful discussion yesterday with Constance Bomellier on this > issue and what I realized in the course of the discussion is the degree to > which the MS model is at its core, its very DNA a techie's/engineer's model > with its impatience with complexity and "fuzziness", it's belief that there > are single simple solutions to very complex problems (and diverse > interests), its drive for a single simple outcome when many outcomes have to > be seen as iterative, long term and even self-reflexive processes. > > I don't deny the value of the MS model for technical issues, but I see > extreme danger in an unthinking and uncritical stampede toward MSism in > policy areas way way beyond the technical as is so evident here at the IGF. > > Rough consensus and running code would not have allowed for the long term > process that overcame child labour, created the public health measures that > conquered typhus, nor would it have ended slavery. Whether it can ensure an > open, transparent, equitable, rule of law based and human rights protecting > Internet for all is to my mind a very very open question and certainly > something to be discussed rather than assumed. > > When challenged here at the IGF and elsewhere, the proponents of the MS > model indicate that of course, MSism is a constituent element of democratic > governance... > > I'm still waiting for anyone to give a coherent explanation of what that > relationship is in a practical sense. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:16 PM > To: michael gurstein > Subject: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement > model" > > I would be interested in your suggestions, comments, edits. > /John > > === One view of the "multistakeholder engagement model" > > . Open and Inclusive: Discussions are open to all and structured to > encourage the broadest range of relevant inputs from all interested parties. > Input provided is valued and heard by all. All documents are freely > available online. Processes for public comment and remote participation are > provided wherever feasible, and without requirements for participation other > than decorum. > > . Consensus-based: Discussions allow for all views to be considered and > addressed, leading towards common understanding and consensus among > participants. Discussions are structured to avoid domination by any > community of interest. > > . Transparent and Accountable: Processes for discussions and decision- > making are documented, publicly available, and followed. Easily accessible > records of decisions and the materials used for reaching those decisions are > provided. Due process is provided to appeal decisions where processes were > not followed. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 23 20:18:59 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:18:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" In-Reply-To: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> References: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Oct 23 20:48:03 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:48:03 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Message-ID: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Hi Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to. Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? Bill > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm > Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 > An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime > > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. > > So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. > > Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. > > This requires: > The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. > The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. > A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. > The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. > We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 21:24:13 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 21:24:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Bill, On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group > wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship > to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do > shouldn't be able to. Sums it up nicely. > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? good question! @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the "technical community" should take over from governments. I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes. I'm not willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes. I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react. Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions? -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 23 23:38:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:38:42 +0800 Subject: [governance] If Multistakeholderism Had Prevailed in the Late 19th/Early 20th Century Would Women Have the Vote? (.Would We Still Have Slavery? Message-ID: <082401ced06a$8c5207a0$a4f616e0$@gmail.com> I've expanded my response to John Curran to a blogpost... http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/if-multistakeholderism-had-prevaile d-in-the-late-19thearly-20th-century-would-women-have-the-vote-would-we-stil l-have-slavery/ http://tinyurl.com/nuhedmd M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 24 00:16:15 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:46:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> On Thursday 24 October 2013 06:18 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a > framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that > one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to > Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with > yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and > said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes > beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have > different ideas of the desirable end states. It wpuld be ok if we knew what is meant by MS processes, and specifically, is there any plan here to do global public policy development in substantive areas like norms/ guidelines/ legal frameworks for privacy, net neutrality, taxation issues around cross border e-com, competition issues, and the so many other areas of public policy areas.... Or is it just about technical management of the Internet, whether or not that includes oversight issue or not. The recent ICANN initiative, which I strongly feel is tactically backed by the US gov (if it did not originate there), strongly suggests extending ICANN model to other substantive policy areas... That is the main thrust... And people need to know about such basic issues before they can join or not. I specially asked Chris about it during the meeting, and his response clearly implied that it was about these other substantive public policy issues. That would be a big shift from what many people see as the legitimate role of ICANN like MS models in global IG governance.. MS ism of the kind OECD practices in its Internet policy making is of course a different issue, and that is welcome and should be adopted more widely. To make the issue clearer by providing a contrast: if one gets up today and declares, all those who support democratic processes in global IG, come join us, would you for instance join that group, without asking further questions. parminder > Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice > your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own > relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that > those who do shouldn't be able to. > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, > why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > Bill > >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> im Auftrag von >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> ; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting >> tomorrow lunchtime >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community >> meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to >> me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are >> forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" >> campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting >> the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against >> "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed >> - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and >> Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to >> create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting >> is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of >> that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The >> overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT >> campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for >> the technical community, and at a time like this, it is >> totally misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our >> response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to >> lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be >> having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room >> Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and >> Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little >> early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, >> but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether >> you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements >> tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around >> the world, committed to the development of an open Internet >> and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and >> expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in >> 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, >> participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance >> architecture is required to support an inclusive, >> people-centric, development-oriented information society. >> We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a >> structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of >> all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and >> promotes human rights. >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in >> planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in >> the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed >> at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC >> process as appropriate. >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or >> presentations of good intentions and seek to produce >> actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for >> organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will >> commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all >> stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate >> on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final >> outputs. >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend >> meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been >> used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to >> a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the >> goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory >> debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society >> participation. >> > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), > wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 00:21:41 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:21:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] If Multistakeholderism Had Prevailed in the Late 19th/Early 20th Century Would Women Have the Vote? (.Would We Still Have Slavery? In-Reply-To: <082401ced06a$8c5207a0$a4f616e0$@gmail.com> References: <082401ced06a$8c5207a0$a4f616e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I've expanded my response to John Curran to a blogpost... > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/if-multistakeholderism-had-prevaile > d-in-the-late-19thearly-20th-century-would-women-have-the-vote-would-we-stil > l-have-slavery/ ummm, there wouldn't have been any need to vote (men or women voting) if MSism had prevailed, as with MSism, we don't use "voting". -- McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 00:29:37 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:29:37 +0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: FW: Meeting invitation: Dynamic Coalition of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet In-Reply-To: <1ABBCED8BA1770409E3FAC64F95D8F900104063C@JURIST.torv.ee> References: <992335513.8223.1382550963971.JavaMail.nobody@jln2tc001.webex.com> <1ABBCED8BA1770409E3FAC64F95D8F900104063C@JURIST.torv.ee> Message-ID: See below for remote participation info for the Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression meeting taking place in 30min time. Angela *From:* Room 7 Host [mailto:messenger at webex.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:56 PM *To:* Karmen Turk *Subject:* Meeting invitation: Dynamic Coalition of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet**** ** ** Hello Karmen Turk, Room 7 Host invites you to attend this online meeting. Topic: Dynamic Coalition of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet Date: Thursday, 24 October 2013 Time: 8:00, Northern Europe Summer Time (Helsinki, GMT+03:00) Meeting Number: 951 560 745 Meeting Password: IGF2013 ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=233977107&UID=1689769232&PW=NNjM4NWUzYjFi&RT=MTgjMzA%3D 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: IGF2013 4. Click "Join". To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=233977107&UID=1689769232&PW=NNjM4NWUzYjFi&ORT=MTgjMzA%3D ------------------------------------------------------- To join the audio conference only ------------------------------------------------------- Call-in toll number (UK): +44-203-478-5289 Global call-in numbers: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=233977107&tollFree=0 Access code:951 560 745 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: rp7 at intgovforum.org To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=233977107&UID=1689769232&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=18&ST=1&SHA2=AAAAAlTH8RVIgtQ3katygKER10tr3kc-IeIstGTmvYm1XSJG&RT=MTgjMzA%3D The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your computer by going to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/systemdiagnosis.php. Sign up for a free trial of WebEx http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial http://www.webex.com CCP:+442034785289x951560745# IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. **** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 24 00:33:44 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:33:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] If Multistakeholderism Had Prevailed in the Late 19th/Early 20th Century Would Women Have the Vote? (.Would We Still Have Slavery? In-Reply-To: References: <082401ced06a$8c5207a0$a4f616e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1C5286D0-624D-4EE3-9A17-8613172BC4B8@acm.org> hi, If we had voted on slavery there would still be slavery. In the US we had a civil war to eliminate slavery. even the vote we had with only half the country still in the congress was a bare win based on a power play. Is civil war what is being proposed by those who no longer want to work on the basis of Consensus (and by that I mean forms of rough consensus non unanimity) and the multistakeholder model? Voting is part of the answer to democracy, but representational democracy is only one part of the democratic spectrum and a part that has been shown to be rather fragile and easy to abuse with money, violence, lack of education and all sorts of forms of propaganda. avri On 24 Oct 2013, at 12:21, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I've expanded my response to John Curran to a blogpost... >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/if-multistakeholderism-had-prevaile >> d-in-the-late-19thearly-20th-century-would-women-have-the-vote-would-we-stil >> l-have-slavery/ > > > > ummm, there wouldn't have been any need to vote (men or women voting) if MSism > had prevailed, as with MSism, we don't use "voting". > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 01:17:41 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:17:41 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: FW: Meeting invitation: Dynamic Coalition of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <992335513.8223.1382550963971.JavaMail.nobody@jln2tc001.webex.com> <1ABBCED8BA1770409E3FAC64F95D8F900104063C@JURIST.torv.ee> Message-ID: Please ignore those previous instructions on remote participation and join the room for WS 68 e-participation in IG processes to participate remotely in the Expression meeting. Angela On 24 October 2013 11:29, Angela Daly wrote: > See below for remote participation info for the Dynamic Coalition on > Freedom of Expression meeting taking place in 30min time. > > Angela > > *From:* Room 7 Host [mailto:messenger at webex.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:56 PM > *To:* Karmen Turk > *Subject:* Meeting invitation: Dynamic Coalition of Freedom of Expression > and Freedom of the Media on the Internet**** > > ** ** > > > Hello Karmen Turk, > > Room 7 Host invites you to attend this online meeting. > > Topic: Dynamic Coalition of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media > on the Internet > Date: Thursday, 24 October 2013 > Time: 8:00, Northern Europe Summer Time (Helsinki, GMT+03:00) > Meeting Number: 951 560 745 > Meeting Password: IGF2013 > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=233977107&UID=1689769232&PW=NNjM4NWUzYjFi&RT=MTgjMzA%3D > 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. > 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: IGF2013 > 4. Click "Join". > > To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: > > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=233977107&UID=1689769232&PW=NNjM4NWUzYjFi&ORT=MTgjMzA%3D > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the audio conference only > ------------------------------------------------------- > Call-in toll number (UK): +44-203-478-5289 > Global call-in numbers: > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=233977107&tollFree=0 > > Access code:951 560 745 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > For assistance > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc > 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". > > You can contact me at: > rp7 at intgovforum.org > > > To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft > Outlook), click this link: > > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=233977107&UID=1689769232&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=18&ST=1&SHA2=AAAAAlTH8RVIgtQ3katygKER10tr3kc-IeIstGTmvYm1XSJG&RT=MTgjMzA%3D > > The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files > requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the > meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your > computer by going to > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/systemdiagnosis.php. > > Sign up for a free trial of WebEx > http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial > > http://www.webex.com > > CCP:+442034785289x951560745# > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio > and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the > session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent > to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your > concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do > not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject > to discovery in the event of litigation. **** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 01:34:02 2013 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:34:02 +0300 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > I'm writing this in a personal capacity. > > I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a > car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how > sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking > out of the meeting." > > I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that > this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) > constructive civil society. > > Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably > unsustainable. > > Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets :) > > On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >> with them. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 01:34:44 2013 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:34:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Izumi AIZU wrote: > First, Andrea, are you OK with the accident? I hope you have good recovery. > > Well, while I am in Bali, I could not attend the IGC meeting yesterday as > I had > to attend MAG meeting with the UN ASG during the lunch time. > > I also heard that it was a very rough meeting and many members left the > room > before closure. > > I have not heard yet of the real issues they had that led this walk out. > > But in any case, I hope we would fix this asap. > > izumi > > > > 2013/10/23 Andrea Glorioso 'cvml', 'andrea at digitalpolicy.it');>> > >> I'm writing this in a personal capacity. >> >> I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a >> car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how >> sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking >> out of the meeting." >> >> I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that >> this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) >> constructive civil society. >> >> Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably >> unsustainable. >> >> Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets >> :) >> >> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please >>> advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to >>> the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay >>> with them. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep >> it in mind. >> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Thu Oct 24 02:28:08 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:28:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: FW: Meeting invitation: Dynamic Coalition of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <992335513.8223.1382550963971.JavaMail.nobody@jln2tc001.webex.com> <1ABBCED8BA1770409E3FAC64F95D8F900104063C@JURIST.torv.ee> Message-ID: Hopefully the IGF will post a better archive shortly. but meanwhile ARCHIVED WEBCAST RELAY: http://livestre.am/4EOVf ROUGH TRANSCRIPT: http://isoc-ny.org/igf13/2013-10-24_core_internet_values.txt j On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Angela Daly wrote: > See below for remote participation info for the Dynamic Coalition on > Freedom of Expression meeting taking place in 30min time. > > Angela > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 24 03:12:25 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: IGF moving on "Was Re: [governance] Draft IGC Meeting Minutes" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1382598745.49673.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I stayed till the end of the meeting (though my name is missing from the attendance list). One clear outcome of the meeting (apart from letting off steam) is the realization that we NEED the IGC. Here are the other desires that I heard expressed: 1. The need for each lister to observe the rule of "be liberal in what you receive and conservative in what you send" 2. The need to limit posts/replies/communications to a number of words, like 200. 3. The need to maybe limit personal "opinions" on a particular thread to maximum of posts, like 2/3. State your opinion as clearly as you can and do not overflog it. 4. NO attacks on persons. 5. De Williams was asking if there was a technology that can make posts anonymous. The other option will be to reply to issues... without including people's names. It will help us focus on issues instead of persons 6. The possibility of having thematic leads, for content/input coordination purposes 7. Clarifying our common interest: are we politicians or advocates? 8. The IMPORTANCE of respecting the co-cos. And keeping them out of the "war zone" Hope these prove useful   Nnenna On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:35 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: +1 On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Izumi AIZU wrote: First, Andrea, are you OK with the accident? I hope you have good recovery. > > >Well, while I am in Bali, I could not attend the IGC meeting yesterday as I had >to attend MAG meeting with the UN ASG during the lunch time. > > >I also heard that it was a very rough meeting and many members left the room >before closure. > > >I have not heard yet of the real issues they had that led this walk out. > > >But in any case, I hope we would fix this asap. > > >izumi > > > > > >2013/10/23 Andrea Glorioso > >I'm writing this in a personal capacity.  >> >> >>I'm not in Bali (I was not supposed to go and in any case I was hit by a car on Saturday - must have been destiny :) but I just want to share how sad I am to read that "Emotions were high which resulted in some walking out of the meeting."   >> >> >>I'm not interested in naming & blaming, but let me stress forcefully that this moment in the history of the Internet needs a strong and (critically) constructive civil society.  >> >> >>Without that, any result of the ongoing discussions will be unavoidably unsustainable.  >> >> >>Best wishes to all those who are in Bali (and keep up the mails / tweets :) >> >>On Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>Dear All, >>> >>>This is the draft minutes of the meeting of the IGC yesterday. Please advise whether I missed anyone's name out or if they would like to add to the draft minutes. I will formalize the minutes as soon as everyone is okay with them. >>> >>>Kind Regards, >>>Sala >>> >> >>-- >> >>-- >>I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. >>Twitter: @andreaglorioso >>Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >>LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > >-- >                     >> Izumi Aizu << >Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,           >Japan >www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Thu Oct 24 03:35:42 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:35:42 +0800 Subject: [governance] Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" In-Reply-To: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> References: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <42EF9498-4DA5-41AB-9EC7-47FEFDAE20AF@difference.com.au> The more I engage in mutli-stakeholder processes, the less I find it resembles some of the criticisms made of it. TL;DR - it reads to me as if Michael is comparing an idealised hypothetical version of democracy vs a very outdated version of MSism based only on a select few very technical organisations. On 24/10/2013, at 7:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for this John... I have a couple of comments which are rather to do > with MSism overall rather than the below which is good as far as it goes... > and given their nature I think they are perhaps worth circulating to the > large Governance list. > > The first is that the MS model in itself is exclusive/exclusionary in that > many potential/useful/even necessary voices aren't included for a variety of > reasons--they don't know about the process, they don't have the > (language/conceptual/technical etc.) skills/confidence/technology to > participate. Of course, this is a real problem - but it is also a real problem with alternatives to multi-stakeholder governance. For example, yes, you need to know about the MS process and have the appropriate skills - but often for alternatives to MS processes, you need to know about, have the skills - and then pass through some form of credentialling processes, often involving significant expense, or the approval of gatekeepers whose agenda differs from yours, such as being selected to join a government delegation or consulting group. > In these instances a the "passive" MS model doesn't work since > what is needed is a pro-active engagement which animates/enables the > non-participant and thus gives them the means to contribute... It is certainly true - but rather than taking this as a reason to reject multi-stakeholderism, I think it is simply a reflection of the fact that all good governance requires resources and maintenance. You don't get outreach to potential stakeholders for free. It takes time, effort, and often a lot of smart tactics. Some multi-stakeholder orgs do it well, some do it poorly. Some try quite hard (ICANN certainly devotes quite of resources to it - it is debatable whether they do it effectively, but they certainly try), some don't. But it isn't a flaw in MSism - it is an indication of what is needed to do it well. > The second is that the model is one that strives for/even requires > "consensus"... Striving for consensus is a good thing. Sometimes it is unachievable. A realistic process needs to acknowledge that sometimes > That being the case there are tremendous incentives towards > consensus and equally if not more significant, disincentives against > divergence/conflict. Sure. But is that so bad compared to the alternatives? Multi-lateralism has incentives towards comparative national advantage at the expense of the best outcome for all. Direct democracy has incentives towards easily explained populist solutions. Any governance method has its biases. > While in some instances consensus is desireable and > useful it is not something on which one can build unless one chooses to try > to artificially bury/bulldoze dissenting/diverging voices and > non-commensurable interests (which in the real world in many many and not > insignificant issues are necessary... And in practice, many MS bodies pragmatically recognise that full consensus is often not achievable, and you need other mechanisms when a consensus seeking process doesn't work. Many MS bodies include some sort of mechanism that can resolve some of the difficult to solve issues by a vote (as an ICANN GNSO councillor, I'm very familiar with one such process). Making a workable process that balances all the desirable features of equity, transparency, openness etc with more pragmatic requirements of workability and usefulness is hard. MSism isn't a magic bullet - it gives you some principles to go with, but there are heaps of specific details that have to be decided. And what you end up will inevitably have some flaws. We don't need to have a 'purist' MS model. There can be checks and balances where they are necessary. ICANN, for example, has a multi-lateral government body right there in the middle - the GAC. > I had a very useful discussion yesterday with Constance Bomellier on this > issue and what I realized in the course of the discussion is the degree to > which the MS model is at its core, its very DNA a techie's/engineer's model > with its impatience with complexity and "fuzziness", it's belief that there > are single simple solutions to very complex problems (and diverse > interests), its drive for a single simple outcome when many outcomes have to > be seen as iterative, long term and even self-reflexive processes. > > I don't deny the value of the MS model for technical issues, but I see > extreme danger in an unthinking and uncritical stampede toward MSism in > policy areas way way beyond the technical as is so evident here at the IGF. This description of MSism reads very much as if it is equating MSism with the IETF model, or perhaps the RIRs. Now, that would be a bad mistake on its own - the models of MSism governance in ICANN, various ccTLDs, etc are different, and very much not dominated by techies (the strength of MS processes in ICANN etc is getting techies, lawyers, pubic policy people, business folk in the same room talking directly). But the IETF model isn't even clearly a multi-stakeholder one (contributions from all stakeholders are welcome in the IETF, but they come as individuals not stakeholder representatives). It is also very far from my experience that MSism is based around the idea of there being single simple solutions - quite the contrary, MS decision making often openly acknowledges that the problems it needs to be deal with may be complex, multi-disciplinary (finding solutions that work both legally and technically, while satisfying equity, justice and transparency etc requirements). MS processes are just as capable of acknowledging the need for iterative review as any other - the IETF certainly issues many RFCs that update previous, and ICANN seems to be spend quite a significant portion of its time reviewing itself and its previous decisions. The MS model may have roots in a community of only technical researchers, but so what? The Westminster parliamentary system has its roots in a house of hereditary peers - and both have moved on a long way from where they started. And if you are worried about an unthinking and uncritical stamped - then we need to think more and be more critical. Recognising that MS processes have gone far beyond a technical community only IETF model would be a good start. > Rough consensus and running code would not have allowed for the long term > process that overcame child labour, created the public health measures that > conquered typhus, nor would it have ended slavery. A majority rules, democratic vote, wouldn't have supported a minority scientific viewpoint about the mechanisms by which typhus spread against a prevailing majority view that it originated with 'miasma'. No single model solves all problems. The Multi-Stakeholder model isn't being presented as a model that > Whether it can ensure an > open, transparent, equitable, rule of law based and human rights protecting > Internet for all is to my mind a very very open question and certainly > something to be discussed rather than assumed. Sure. But presenting a caricatured version of MSism as just being a bunch of techies sitting in a room, while ignoring the very real flaws in the multi-lateral alternatives, isn't helping. Don't just tell us why you think MS models don't match up to a hypothetical idealised model of democracy. But what we actually get instead is democratically elected govts who use multi-lateralism to create processes like the inequitable, closed, non-transparent TPPA process, and surely we can do better than that with a multistakeholder model. Real world MS based models will have flaws, sure - but no one is trying to claim MS models will be perfect, only that we should be able to create MS based processes that will usually be better than the alternatives. Cheers David (currently an ICANN GNSO councillor, among other hats). > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:16 PM > To: michael gurstein > Subject: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement > model" > > I would be interested in your suggestions, comments, edits. > /John > > === One view of the "multistakeholder engagement model" > > . Open and Inclusive: Discussions are open to all and structured to > encourage the broadest range of relevant inputs from all interested parties. > Input provided is valued and heard by all. All documents are freely > available online. Processes for public comment and remote participation are > provided wherever feasible, and without requirements for participation other > than decorum. > > . Consensus-based: Discussions allow for all views to be considered and > addressed, leading towards common understanding and consensus among > participants. Discussions are structured to avoid domination by any > community of interest. > > . Transparent and Accountable: Processes for discussions and decision- > making are documented, publicly available, and followed. Easily accessible > records of decisions and the materials used for reaching those decisions are > provided. Due process is provided to appeal decisions where processes were > not followed. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Oct 24 05:28:01 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:28:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" In-Reply-To: <42EF9498-4DA5-41AB-9EC7-47FEFDAE20AF@difference.com.au> References: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> <42EF9498-4DA5-41AB-9EC7-47FEFDAE20AF@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <821CF4E6-49A8-48DC-BB12-36F67740E65F@istaff.org> On Oct 24, 2013, at 3:35 PM, David Cake wrote: > This description of MSism reads very much as if it is equating MSism with the IETF model, or perhaps the RIRs. Now, that would be a bad mistake on its own - the models of MSism governance in ICANN, various ccTLDs, etc are different, and very much not dominated by techies (the strength of MS processes in ICANN etc is getting techies, lawyers, pubic policy people, business folk in the same room talking directly). But the IETF model isn't even clearly a multi-stakeholder one (contributions from all stakeholders are welcome in the IETF, but they come as individuals not stakeholder representatives). David - Both the RIRs and IETF often have "techies, lawyers, pubic policy people, business folk in the same room talking directly" when necessary... that is not unique in any way to ICANN. Regarding multistakeholder models, there are both "open" and "representative" implementations, with different strengths and weaknesses to each. This came up in one of the IGF sessions today ("No. 41 Developing and effectively using Multistakeholder Principles", by APC & Government of Brazil & ICC BASIS & ISOC), and I'm not certain there is any merit in trying to label one as less multi-stakeholder than the other. FYI, /John p.s. My views alone. (Luckily, I was selected as the official representative for the constituency of my views; it would have been kinda awkward otherwise... :-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu Oct 24 05:40:06 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:40:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" In-Reply-To: <821CF4E6-49A8-48DC-BB12-36F67740E65F@istaff.org> References: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> <42EF9498-4DA5-41AB-9EC7-47FEFDAE20AF@difference.com.au> <821CF4E6-49A8-48DC-BB12-36F67740E65F@istaff.org> Message-ID: John, I wonder: given that we have plenty of examples of analysis *and* evaluations of how democratic processes perform, why not have similar assessments when it comes to MSH processes? Assuming, of course, we can develop a baseline to benchmark against. Best, Andrea On Thursday, 24 October 2013, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 24, 2013, at 3:35 PM, David Cake > > wrote: > > > This description of MSism reads very much as if it is equating > MSism with the IETF model, or perhaps the RIRs. Now, that would be a bad > mistake on its own - the models of MSism governance in ICANN, various > ccTLDs, etc are different, and very much not dominated by techies (the > strength of MS processes in ICANN etc is getting techies, lawyers, pubic > policy people, business folk in the same room talking directly). But the > IETF model isn't even clearly a multi-stakeholder one (contributions from > all stakeholders are welcome in the IETF, but they come as individuals not > stakeholder representatives). > > David - > > Both the RIRs and IETF often have "techies, lawyers, pubic policy > people, business folk in the same room talking directly" when > necessary... that is not unique in any way to ICANN. > > Regarding multistakeholder models, there are both "open" and > "representative" implementations, with different strengths and > weaknesses to each. This came up in one of the IGF sessions > today ("No. 41 Developing and effectively using Multistakeholder > Principles", by APC & Government of Brazil & ICC BASIS & ISOC), > and I'm not certain there is any merit in trying to label one > as less multi-stakeholder than the other. > > FYI, > /John > > p.s. My views alone. (Luckily, I was selected as the official > representative for the constituency of my views; it would > have been kinda awkward otherwise... :-) > > > > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Thu Oct 24 05:42:56 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:42:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" In-Reply-To: <821CF4E6-49A8-48DC-BB12-36F67740E65F@istaff.org> References: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> <42EF9498-4DA5-41AB-9EC7-47FEFDAE20AF@difference.com.au> <821CF4E6-49A8-48DC-BB12-36F67740E65F@istaff.org> Message-ID: <87E50A2D-F69B-4604-8476-2994150983DC@difference.com.au> On 24/10/2013, at 5:28 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 24, 2013, at 3:35 PM, David Cake wrote: > >> This description of MSism reads very much as if it is equating MSism with the IETF model, or perhaps the RIRs. Now, that would be a bad mistake on its own - the models of MSism governance in ICANN, various ccTLDs, etc are different, and very much not dominated by techies (the strength of MS processes in ICANN etc is getting techies, lawyers, pubic policy people, business folk in the same room talking directly). But the IETF model isn't even clearly a multi-stakeholder one (contributions from all stakeholders are welcome in the IETF, but they come as individuals not stakeholder representatives). > > David - > > Both the RIRs and IETF often have "techies, lawyers, pubic policy > people, business folk in the same room talking directly" when > necessary... that is not unique in any way to ICANN. I'm sure that is so - I've never been involved with either, only ICANN, but of course those organisations have also evolved to be far more than just organisations that seek technical solutions in isolation. I just wanted to make the point that the idea of MSism as a 'techies only' model is very far off the reality of current MS processes in practice - quite the reverse, in fact, ICANN processes almost guarantee that you won't have a techies only process for any issue that isn't very technical in nature. > Regarding multistakeholder models, there are both "open" and > "representative" implementations, with different strengths and > weaknesses to each. This came up in one of the IGF sessions > today ("No. 41 Developing and effectively using Multistakeholder > Principles", by APC & Government of Brazil & ICC BASIS & ISOC), > and I'm not certain there is any merit in trying to label one > as less multi-stakeholder than the other. There are certainly differences between the two models, and perhaps the 'representative' model is closer to what we normally talk about as multi-stakeholder, but that certainly isn't meant to imply that either is to be preferred. I only used that terminology because a long term IETFer had made that point to me at lunch, but clearly it is a point of linguistic contention . Both models clearly have roles to play in multi-stakeholder decision making. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 05:50:18 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:50:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi, On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim wrote: > Bill, > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a > framing > > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group > > wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked > > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed > > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get > > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include > people > > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable > > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to > > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the > > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own > relationship > > to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do > > shouldn't be able to. > > Sums it up nicely. > > > > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, > why do > > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > good question! > Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain? I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past the initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct "relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the most desirable and the latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't we do both, especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of CS and those of I* orgs are not fully aligned? And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil meeting" as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would ask. > > @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the > "technical community" should take over from governments. > McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there are direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice them literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3 or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such state of affairs has implications that you did not need to state explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you agree with that (as implied by your question), then my response to you was warranted. Note that the said response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs than it is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are different. Cheers! Mawaki > > I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and > regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in > addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes. I'm not > willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can > instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes. > > I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react. > Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions? > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Oct 24 05:57:31 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:57:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" In-Reply-To: References: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> <42EF9498-4DA5-41AB-9EC7-47FEFDAE20AF@difference.com.au> <821CF4E6-49A8-48DC-BB12-36F67740E65F@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Oct 24, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > John, > > I wonder: given that we have plenty of examples of analysis *and* evaluations of how democratic processes perform, why not have similar assessments when it comes to MSH processes? I think it would be useful. > Assuming, of course, we can develop a baseline to benchmark against. Indeed. /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mshears at cdt.org Thu Oct 24 06:01:04 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:01:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Thoughts on one description of the "multistakeholder engagement model" In-Reply-To: References: <078d01ced044$dee77f70$9cb67e50$@gmail.com> <42EF9498-4DA5-41AB-9EC7-47FEFDAE20AF@difference.com.au> <821CF4E6-49A8-48DC-BB12-36F67740E65F@istaff.org> Message-ID: <5268EFE0.5070809@cdt.org> Agree. Hopefully this could be a part of the work of the IGF WG on Multistakeholder Principles going forward. On 24/10/2013 10:57, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 24, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> John, >> >> I wonder: given that we have plenty of examples of analysis *and* evaluations of how democratic processes perform, why not have similar assessments when it comes to MSH processes? > I think it would be useful. > >> Assuming, of course, we can develop a baseline to benchmark against. > > Indeed. > /John > > > -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Oct 24 06:03:14 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:03:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20131024100314.GA2807@hserus.net> I think what Bill is saying is that there appears to be a refusal to acknowledge the technical community as civil society or even multistakeholder in nature, so that any outreach from them is characterized as a power grab, and there appears to be a refusal to engage in their processes. Civil society being as amorphous as it is, there is absolutely no bar to any caucus or combination of people forming with their own views and ideas - the problem lies in objecting to other such groups forming, and calling them power grabs. In such a case, is it to be implied that other sections of civil society too are intent on their own such "power grabs" where they, not the people over in the other "power grab" call the shots and drive their ideology? That doesn't sound terribly conducive to any sort of consensus -suresh Mawaki Chango [24/10/13 09:50 +0000]: >Hi, > > >On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim wrote: > >> Bill, >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake >> wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a >> framing >> > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group >> > wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked >> > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed >> > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get >> > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include >> people >> > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable >> > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to >> > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the >> > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own >> relationship >> > to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do >> > shouldn't be able to. >> >> Sums it up nicely. >> >> > >> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, >> why do >> > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? >> >> good question! >> > >Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about >this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain? >I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting >"intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past the >initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint >meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have >different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But >frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct >"relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the >most desirable and the latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't >we do both, especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of CS >and those of I* orgs are not fully aligned? > >And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil meeting" >as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but >since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would ask. > > >> >> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the >> "technical community" should take over from governments. >> > >McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But >what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the >first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can >fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without >linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there >are direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice them >literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3 >or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't >question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and >just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to >start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my >response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such >state of affairs has implications that you did not need to state >explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are >indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as >described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you agree with that (as >implied by your question), then my response to you was warranted. Note that >the said response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs than >it is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are >different. > >Cheers! > >Mawaki > > >> >> I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and >> regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in >> addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes. I'm not >> willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can >> instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes. >> >> I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react. >> Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions? >> >> -- >> 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.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 06:50:39 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:50:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Mawaki, On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about > this without CS being involved? I would say they have not, as I consider them to be part of CS, but I know that i am in the minority on that one. And you know that for certain? > I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting > "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past the > initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint meetings > with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have different > ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But frankly, you sound > like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct "relationship to the > Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the most desirable and the > latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't we do both, especially if > there remain issues on which the objectives of CS and those of I* orgs are > not fully aligned? > > And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil meeting" > as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but > since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would ask. > >> >> >> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the >> "technical community" should take over from governments. > > > McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But > what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the > first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can > fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without > linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there are > direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice them > literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3 > or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't > question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and > just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to > start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my > response to your question. I see your error. You have decided incorrectly, that I reacted to Jeremy's' take on what went on in the meeting, when in fact, I reacted to the second half of the para: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > models. It is here that I asked why that was a bad thing referring to the grass-roots coalition/primacy of the MS model. If I had been reacting to the first bit (which seemed to be flame-bait, and thus best avoided), it would have looked like this: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > models. And if his rendition is accurate, then such state > of affairs has implications that you did not need to state explicitly. By > asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are indicating that you > agreed with such state of affairs. See above. None of us can possibly find enough time during the day to explicitly state all of our disagreements with what others write on this list. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 24 11:22:51 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:22:51 -0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52693B4B.8080105@cafonso.ca> Monkeys bite me! I do not wish the technical community taking over. The vision of a Skynet is terrifying! --c.a. On 10/23/2013 02:53 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the > "technical" community. > Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs > earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. > > McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it > say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really > means "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. > Furthermore, I do not think I have any track record for celebrating > governments, but I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may > be evil, but it was also a world led by governments which gave us the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related texts, which have > served as formidable normative tools for social progress. And sometimes, > some of them put a stake into seeing those norms upheld. > > Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best > interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me > since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that > designers could do a better job in making the technology more > HR-friendly, so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful > things --there's no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot > write a clean and accurate user guide for... users! It is my sense that > they are mostly impressed with impressing their peers, as is often the > case with minority groups of meritocrats. So yes, seeing > "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from > "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of concern > to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. > > I'm just saying -- "on equal footing" my dear! > > Mawaki > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, McTim > wrote: > > Jeremy, > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community > meeting that > > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an > astonishing > > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that > will create a > > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of > reasserting the > > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > > models. > > CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it > gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 24 11:28:58 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:28:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <52693CBA.5060704@cafonso.ca> "Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these "relationships". --c.a. On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to. > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > Bill > >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 24 13:37:48 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:37:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] IFF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 23:33 21/10/2013, McTim wrote: >Why is that a useful metric? The same as to know if you are a man or a women or a neutral. All this is part of everyone's trust deconstruction process regarding others: "why would I trust you if you do not trust me: you know this rule of the game, so the least you tell me the least you wish I trust you". You can technically call it a "trust negociation process". Why would I trust you if I do not know which countrymen you would accept to die for. This means that you want to hide some of your basic societal clue. Westphalian States are about Nation-States (i.e. states embodied into a nation). Today we are in a democratic Society-State mood, where the State emanates from a society. However, that your agenda is from your King or that it is why you elected your President, you share a national set interests with others and I will trust you less if I do not know a minimum about it. BTW, nothing prevents you from inventing yourself a country and creating its state. This exactly is what Google did. The real problem today for the States is the Google multinational e-sovereignty and their e-State behavior - signing their own treaties, imposing their own laws to the visitors of their virtual territory. It is like the Technical Coalition praying for an ICANN/IANA "globalization" but being careful at not telling what they intend by such a globalization nor how they want to obtain it. What is their true agenda? Is it national/multi-corporate/multi-lateral/professionnal/societal? Who knows? This is why my IFF is dumb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe This is worrying because an IFF is the function we mostly need to work on the net today. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 24 14:05:29 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:05:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> , Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> All It would be a mistake to let this discussion degenerate into categorizations of empty stakeholder abstractions: governments as "upholders of human rights" (cough!), technical community as good or bad, etc. This is one of the truly silly things about the decision the I* organizations made to label the proper approach to Internet governance as "the multistakeholder model." As if there were "the" single model (there isn't), as if multistakeholderism actually described IETF (it doesn't), as if the presence of multiple stakeholders in a process automatically means good, freedom and efficiency-enhancing governance (it doesn't). Talking about "techies" - either pro or con - is just not helpful at this point. Same goes for claims regarding "civil society." Better to talk about specific values and objectives and how VERY SPECIFIC institutional mechanisms contribute to them, or not. There is some legitimate space for concern about who is represented in meetings and decision making, and I very much do share Jeremy's concern about the I* organizations running away with the ball, but finger-pointing regarding stakeholder categories is pointless. A bit of a historical correction for you also, Mawaki. It was a world led by the _United States_ government that gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not a world led by "governments." We rammed it down everyone's throats, and anyway the formulation of and advocacy for rights comes from a vibrant civil society under certain kinds of constitutional regimes, not from states as states. The US had just won WW2, and had unparalleled hegemony over Europe, Japan and many other parts of the world. It never would have happened otherwise. I don't think that lesson has any clear relevance to current discussions regarding IG, but if you think it does, perhaps you can explain in more detail. --MM ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Mawaki Chango [kichango at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:53 PM To: Internet Governance; McTim Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the "technical" community. Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore, I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into seeing those norms upheld. Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly, so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and accurate user guide for... users! It is my sense that they are mostly impressed with impressing their peers, as is often the case with minority groups of meritocrats. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of concern to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. I'm just saying -- "on equal footing" my dear! Mawaki On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, McTim > wrote: Jeremy, On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > models. CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 24 14:08:34 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:08:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 24 14:11:41 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:11:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <4423DF18-2C7C-45CC-894F-72CDCF87229F@istaff.org> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> ,<4423DF18-2C7C-45CC-894F-72CDCF87229F@istaff.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A6D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > There are also inherent limits what can be accomplished based on principles > which are basically voluntary in nature. For example, even if there were common, > global agreement on social norms regarding unsolicited commercial email, the > mechanisms that would be provided from an entirely techno-centric Internet > cooperation system would be limited to various voluntary measures of increasing > complexity, in the typical "arms race" of increasing subterfuge and improved > detection and mitigation. These not really a solutions at all, just a sequence of > coping strategies which result in increasing costs and pain for the users. Not necessarily. Most of the real mitigation of Internet problems occurs in exactly this way. This may be a terrible way of approaching problems it is just that in 95% of the cases it is better than all the alternatives. > Whereas, if there were a common and global agreement on acceptable social norms in > this area (hypothetically), and given engagement of all parties (including governments), > there likely would be far superior mechanisms available which provide a higher level of > assurance and lower costs to users globally. Your lack of familiarity with the broader field of policy studies may lead you to overstate the potential of collective action involving states, especially at the international level. Would you like to provide an example or two of a successful effort of this sort in a highly technical field? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 24 14:35:31 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:35:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> This is a perfect example of why I've been warning you to focus in on things the IG community actually knows something about and can do something about, such as the IANA contract and ICANN accountability, rather than posing as a global parliament and thinking that you can legislate across 27 different sectors of the economy, taxation and even national security. Any meeting, in Rio or elsewhere in 2014, that takes on the agenda suggested by Parminder below, will get nowhere. Not just because the issues are too diverse and there will not even be a suitable knowledge base, much less consensus on policy outcomes, but also because any such group would totally lack the authority required to address such issues. Lacking such authority, the meeting will be NO DIFFERENT from an IGF. So why do it in Rio? Why not the IGF? ---- Parminder's agenda >global public policy development in substantive areas like norms/ guidelines/ legal frameworks >for privacy, net neutrality, taxation issues around cross border e-com, competition issues, and >the so many other areas of public policy areas.... ---- (I myself am eager to work on the "many other areas of public policy areas") Ironically, here in Washington I also heard the ICANN representative talking about how the Rio meeting should address many new, "orphan" issues such as.....wait for it.....cybersecurity! Yeah, that's a problem that's going to be solved by a one off meeting with 1000 people in it, for sure.... I can explain this absurd position in two possible ways: first, it may be that the I* orgs would prefer that Brazil, other governments and everyone else waste their time chatting about "global public policy development" (i.e., duplicating the IGF) rather than actually solving ICANN's accountability and IANA problem. After all, we've seen what IGF has accomplished in 7 years. A neo-IGF will do the same, but might manage to maintain the illusion for governments that something new is happening. Another, slightly less cynical explanation is that they want this Rio meeting to pre-empt the ITU plenipot, as some states still want the ITU to do cybersecurity. So apparently these people are so irrationally afraid of the ITU that they would rather push vital areas of policy into hastily thrown together and poorly designed multistakeholder processes just so they can say that the ITU doesn't need to do it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 24 14:40:17 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:40:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <20131024100314.GA2807@hserus.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <20131024100314.GA2807@hserus.net> Message-ID: At 12:03 24/10/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >Civil society being as amorphous as it is, there is absolutely no >bar to any caucus or combination of people forming with their own >views and ideas - the problem lies in objecting to other such groups >forming, and calling them power grabs. Correct. After they voted me out, IETF allowed me to create and facilitate the IUCG at IETF mailing list for the CS to be welcome and assisted in relating with them. There is no one there. http://iucg.org/wiki. However, I cannot adhere to the RFC 6852 new paradigm, as it is purely business oriented. I hope that after their colaition initiative we may settle something through ISOC. Otherwise it will mean we are on a wrong track, heading for a technical net-quake. Its magnitude will depend on what will be discussed until the Brazilian MS Summit. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Oct 24 14:18:32 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:18:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <52693CBA.5060704@cafonso.ca> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52693CBA.5060704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: At 17:28 24/10/2013, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >"Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or >taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the >objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a >bit shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with >these "relationships". Sure, this is why proposed you to coordinate by our own, through http://bramsummit.org moderation and animation. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 24 14:43:35 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:43:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <52693CBA.5060704@cafonso.ca> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52693CBA.5060704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Carlos I hope the Brazilians are not annoyed enough to rupture their budding partnership with Fadi. Yesterday I was at the Wilson Center at an event run by the Brazil Institute there regarding Brazil's vision for Internet governance. The consensus among the Br people speaking there was that while President Dilma will go nationalistic in certain ways as a reaction to NSA, that she and Brazil as a whole are backing away from their idea that the ITU should take over names and numbers. If only folks would concentrate on that solvable problem of the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability, this flirtation between ICANN and BR might produce a healthy offspring. MM p.s., hope you are recovering from the monkey bites ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:28 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake Cc: Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime "Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these "relationships". --c.a. On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to. > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > Bill > >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 24 14:54:27 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:54:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] UN UDHR history Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535B28@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Always interested to hear revisionist history. But what I check up doesn't match your interpretation. From the UN website: Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired the UDHR drafting committee. With her were René Cassin of France, who composed the first draft of the Declaration, the Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon, Vice-Chairman Peng Chung Chang of China, and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UN’s Human Rights Division, who prepared the Declaration’s blueprint. But Mrs. Roosevelt was recognized as the driving force for the Declaration’s adoption. Since Roosevelt was the US delegate to the UN, if the USA had opposed the initiative they would not have made her the delegate. True, by 1948 there were Cold War tensions and true, UK and other European powers always wanted to preserve their colonial possessions but the US was not a colonial power at the time. ________________________________ From: Lorena [lorena at collaboratory.de] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:43 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: AW: RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Von Samsung Mobile gesendet -------- Original message -------- Subject: RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime From: Milton L Mueller To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" CC: >A bit of a historical correction for you also, >Mawaki. It was a world led by the _United States_ >government that gave us the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights. Not a world led by >"governments." Sorry but this is a myth and historically not correct: the US and the UK, among other so called developed countries, were against the HR draft. It were many Latin-American countries, India and other so called third world countries, who fought to get the HR declaration with the only support from the US of Eleanor Roosevelt. The background: after signing the declaration countries still having colonies had to declare them independent. So sorry, but the HRD happened by putting a.o. the US under A LOT of pressure. Best regards, Lorena Jaume-Palasi We rammed it down everyone's throats, and anyway the formulation of and advocacy for rights comes from a vibrant civil society under certain kinds of constitutional regimes, not from states as states. The US had just won WW2, and had unparalleled hegemony over Europe, Japan and many other parts of the world. It never would have happened otherwise. I don't think that lesson has any clear relevance to current discussions regarding IG, but if you think it does, perhaps you can explain in more detail. --MM ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Mawaki Chango [kichango at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:53 PM To: Internet Governance; McTim Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the "technical" community. Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore, I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into seeing those norms upheld. Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly, so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and accurate user guide for... users! It is my sense that they are mostly impressed with impressing their peers, as is often the case with minority groups of meritocrats. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the opportunity to shift from "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should be a matter of concern to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. I'm just saying -- "on equal footing" my dear! Mawaki On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, McTim > wrote: Jeremy, On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > models. CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Oct 24 17:56:03 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:56:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Message-ID: A long as Icann behaves as just a stakeholder among stakeholders in the summit's preparatory process, there will be no rupture. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller Date: 24-10-2013 16:43 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Subject: RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Carlos I hope the Brazilians are not annoyed enough to rupture their budding partnership with Fadi. Yesterday I was at the Wilson Center at an event run by the Brazil Institute there regarding Brazil's vision for Internet governance. The consensus among the Br people speaking there was that while President Dilma will go nationalistic in certain ways as a reaction to NSA, that she and Brazil as a whole are backing away from their idea that the ITU should take over names and numbers. If only folks would concentrate on that solvable problem of the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability, this flirtation between ICANN and BR might produce a healthy offspring. MM p.s., hope you are recovering from the monkey bites ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:28 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake Cc: Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime "Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these "relationships". --c.a. On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others.  Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states.  Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns.  If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting.  But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to. > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > Bill > >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models..  The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions.  Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins."  The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response.  This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6.  Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early?  I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented   information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event,  and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of  good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the  initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders  will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. >> We  stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is  not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of  meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness  and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and  participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer >    Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >    University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >    ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >    www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Oct 24 19:05:07 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:05:07 +0800 Subject: Global coordination of technical responses to Internet challenges (was: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A6D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <4423DF18-2C7C-45CC-894F-72CDCF87229F@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A6D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0063A61A-9775-48D9-99EE-536397FA5843@istaff.org> On Oct 25, 2013, at 2:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > There are also inherent limits what can be accomplished based on principles > > which are basically voluntary in nature. For example, even if there were common, > > global agreement on social norms regarding unsolicited commercial email, the > > mechanisms that would be provided from an entirely techno-centric Internet > > cooperation system would be limited to various voluntary measures of increasing > > complexity, in the typical "arms race" of increasing subterfuge and improved > > detection and mitigation. These not really a solutions at all, just a sequence of > > coping strategies which result in increasing costs and pain for the users. > > Not necessarily. Most of the real mitigation of Internet problems occurs in exactly this way. Milton - In many cases, the mitigation strategies are borderline effective, and it's not clear that we have solutions that always keep up, nor that we've actually considered the price and impact that they inflict on end users of the Internet. For example, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks are becoming so large that the mitigation is becoming near impossible for the largest attacks - Now, you might say everything is just fine; it's okay if large portions of the Internet (innocent third parties) are impacted during these attacks, but note they are effectively the side effect of cyber-vigilantism mitigation against a organization which is itself a mitigation effort (i.e. spam blocklists). Should we wait for an anti-DDoS cyber vigilanteism mitigation effort to arise (who knows, maybe they'll decide to use routing attacks) to take on those who are using DDoS attacks (in the process of mitigation against on those who run blocklists, which is only being done for the mitigation of spam)? How many layers of countermeasures/counterattacks do we need to render the net effectively unusable? Every one of these measures has unproductive impacts on innocent parties, and there is no consideration of the cumulative impact as these half-measures are heaped atop one another. > This may be a terrible way of approaching problems it is just that in 95% of the cases it is better than all the alternatives. Actually, let's go with 98 or 99%, since the downside risks of disproportionate regulation, unintended consequences, etc. etc. are all very real, and in general, the folks who have the ability to actually mandate (i.e. governments) generally have shallow understanding of the the situation and political factors that may unduly influence any outcome. In fact, this one of the reasons why actual multi-lateral governmental approaches to nearly any Internet challenge is (in my personal view) very likely a mistake. Nearly anything which is _mandated_ from such high level regarding the deeply technical and pervasive Internet is almost certainly going to miss many potential ramifications that could result, and it does not help that such discussions are inherently inter-governmental, the meaning of outcomes subject to reinterpretation when brought back to national scope and implementation. That does not mean that getting multiple parties (governmental, civil society, business, technical, etc.) to agree that "DDoS attacks are bad" then collaborative consider how to reduce them" is necessarily a mistake. In the ideal world, this would result in some form of coordinated discussion of the problem, various technical solutions, the various societal and business implications of the solutions, and potentially nothing else due to lack of consensus. However by some miracle, consensus were to emerge on a specific technical measure for a problem that could be applied globally, then that would be very good to know. It's possible that may be the end of it; some countries may note the specific technical measure as a best practice for industry to consider for self-improvement, some countries may decide to engage in further discussions on a national basis about "rulemaking", etc. and some may do nothing at all. All of this variation is good; different countries and citizens have different ways of looking at these matters; the important part is any technical measure to address a given challenge has been confirmed to interoperate on a global scale if implemented, so that any deployment that occurs doesn't endanger the interconnected nature of the Internet. > > Whereas, if there were a common and global agreement on acceptable social norms in > > this area (hypothetically), and given engagement of all parties (including governments), > > there likely would be far superior mechanisms available which provide a higher level of > > assurance and lower costs to users globally. > > Your lack of familiarity with the broader field of policy studies may lead you to overstate the potential of collective action involving states, especially at the international level. Would you like to provide an example or two of a successful effort of this sort in a highly technical field? I'm not certain that getting common agreement that "servers should not be left publicly open and exploitable" rises to the same level as climate change or global monetary policy... In fact, most ISPs would agree that there's no reason not to do it right aside from the minor incremental cost, as it is just additional configuration to set DNS rate limiting for your DNS servers and BCP38 source filtering on customer connections.) The fact that we understand the problem (and know of the right technical solutions) doesn't actually do anything to solve the problem, since it's not required for ISPs have solid configurations and no business wishes to take on costs on a voluntarily good samaritan basis if their competitor doesn't do likewise. It doesn't really matter if they know it is the right thing to do, as it has real costs in competitive marketplace and the downside of not doing is indiscernible locally but adds up globally to a very serious problem - Industry is simply not going to adopt such practices, just as businesses are less likely to adopt voluntary fire safety measures. The Internet means that every server is "next door" to every other one, and that means that we need global agreement on the norms (and the actual interoperable technical mechanisms) if we want to actually prevent conflagrations when it comes to distributed denial of service attacks. The private sector isn't particularly excited about this, and in fact, some of them even make good money off the ever increasing capabilities of products and services in the industries which have been enabled as a result of simple misconfiguration repeated globally... The fact that uninvolved users are often caught in the middle of these attacks is actually good news - it creates more headlines and helps sell more products. I imagine that the building construction industry would be equally happy to dispense with firecodes; not only does it reduce their costs, it creates even more business rebuilding the buildings that burn down. The equivalent to what we have in Internet security industry would be no building codes, and a robust market in _personal_ fire extinguishers - "Been caught in a burning building this year? It's becoming a fact of life, so carry your own personal extinguisher to help you get out! Here's some articles about last months victims - don't get caught without your own personal protection!" ;-) FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. (and apologies for length, I lacked the time to make it shorter...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 24 19:24:43 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:24:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] Hosting company: Best Bits website deleted Message-ID: I just received this message from the hosting company for Best Bits: > We are sorry to inform you that the hostnode where your VPS is hosted suffered a major RAID card controller failure, which, unfortunately, was so catastrophic as to render all data on the array as unrecoverable. > > Our engineers have been working today to recover the data from the failed array however we could not recover any sane data held on the array. > > We are really sorry for this loss and are currently building new VPS on a new server with a new RAID 10 disk array. If you have backup of your VPS data then, get in touch and we’ll help you to re-build your VPs. > > As a side note, we have sent the disks off to a specialist data recovery company, however it’s best in the short term to get new VPSs built and brought online. We have no ETA on this as yet or whether any data can be recovered. This means that the Best Bits website and mailing lists are unavailable until further notice. I am sending this message not only to the governance list but to the last backup of the Best Bits list that I have, however I know for sure that some people have joined since then. I have been making backups, but it will take some time to restore (perhaps measured in days), and there may still be some amount of information loss. I apologise for this disaster, which could not possibly have come at a worse time. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 19:59:51 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:59:51 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] Message-ID: Dear All, Following meetings of global civil society which was chaired by Best Bits, there have been some slight changes to the text and I will ask Jeremy to please share it here. *Proposal to the IGC (IGC Position)* *This is a consolidated summary of what civil society on the IGC mailing list have been saying in relation to the Proposal for a Dynamic Coalition. The three points are non-contentious and are part of our mandate under the Charter. Given that we have not solicited feedback from the IGC community in this regard, we will remove any political connotation except for the right to mobilize, freely associate and participate. It is important that as the IGC our release goes out. On the other hand the coordinators are happy to sign the Release in their capacity as coordinators.* * * · 1) Civil Society is a critical part of the shared decision making process in Internet Governance; · 2) Civil Society reserves the right to sit at the table and formulate the Agenda and join the Steering Committee in charting the discussions, organization and coordination; · 3) Civil Society seeks clarifications in terms of deadlines for submissions to enable it to mobilize and gather feedback from its respective constituencies. We also need to continue having the dialogue and hearing all the views from members and subscribers to the IGC. This can continue over the mailing list and simultaneously on the etherpad. Feel free to do tracked edits on this current draft Civil Society Brief. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFT CIVIL SOCIETY BRIEF.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26871 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 24 20:03:06 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:03:06 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> On 25/10/2013, at 7:59 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Following meetings of global civil society which was chaired by Best Bits, there have been some slight changes to the text and I will ask Jeremy to please share it here. Yes here is the final proposed text. There was a question whether to launch it today, but that is probably moot since the Best Bits website is down? We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, recognize that we are in a critical moment for the Internet Governance regime, in which the increasing use of surveillance mechanisms pose a challenge the whole community to tackle. Proactive action is required to restore trust and to ensure human rights are respected and uphold. We remain committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. This requires: The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, it is crucial that civil society is centrally involved at every step of the decision-making process. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 20:15:33 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:15:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Oct 25, 2013, at 5:56 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > A long as Icann behaves as just a stakeholder among stakeholders in the summit's preparatory process, there will be no rupture. > The dynamic coalition or whatever the group will be is where it will be coordinated by representatives of various constituencies. As Global civil society, it will mean agreeing and identifying a transparent process where design a mechanism to nominate representatives to the Steering committee. This will also mean that we need to agree on the criteria of selection. In the interim, there will be people who sit as representatives until November, 2013 when global civil society, alongwith other stakeholders be asked to field representatives. When the selection process to the CSTD occurred, it was decided by APC that the IGC was no longer competent to conduct selections. Similarly, we can have a situation where Best Bits can push forward the nominations. However for there to be legitimacy, transparency in the process, all civil society organisations need to work together to decide what mechanism we will use to run the selection process. The Government of Brazil is comfortable with working with Brazil civil society representatives and they will be liaisons in relations with the host government as has been happening. They are doing a fantastic job. On the other hand, on the issue of the Dynamic Coalition, there has to be dialogue on considerations of selection to allow for diversity into feeding into the Agenda and driving the discussions of what our constituents as global civil society want. > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Milton L Mueller > Date: 24-10-2013 16:43 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" > Subject: RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime > > > Carlos > I hope the Brazilians are not annoyed enough to rupture their budding partnership with Fadi. Yesterday I was at the Wilson Center at an event run by the Brazil Institute there regarding Brazil's vision for Internet governance. The consensus among the Br people speaking there was that while President Dilma will go nationalistic in certain ways as a reaction to NSA, that she and Brazil as a whole are backing away from their idea that the ITU should take over names and numbers. If only folks would concentrate on that solvable problem of the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability, this flirtation between ICANN and BR might produce a healthy offspring. > > MM > > p.s., hope you are recovering from the monkey bites > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:28 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake > Cc: Best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime > > "Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or > taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the > objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit > shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these > "relationships". > > --c.a. > > On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to. > > > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > > > Bill > > > >> > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm > >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 > >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime > >> > >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. > >> > >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. > >> > >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: > >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. > >> > >> This requires: > >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. > >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. > >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. > >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. > >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. > > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > > William J. Drake > > International Fellow & Lecturer > > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > > University of Zurich, Switzerland > > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > > www.williamdrake.org > > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 20:16:27 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:16:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I fully support the statement!!! Sent from my iPad > On Oct 25, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 25/10/2013, at 7:59 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Following meetings of global civil society which was chaired by Best Bits, there have been some slight changes to the text and I will ask Jeremy to please share it here. > > Yes here is the final proposed text. There was a question whether to launch it today, but that is probably moot since the Best Bits website is down? > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, recognize that we are in a critical moment for the Internet Governance regime, in which the increasing use of surveillance mechanisms pose a challenge the whole community to tackle. Proactive action is required to restore trust and to ensure human rights are respected and uphold. We remain committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. > > This requires: > The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. > The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. > A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. > The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. > We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, it is crucial that civil society is centrally involved at every step of the decision-making process. > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 20:17:50 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:17:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Sent from my iPad > On Oct 25, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 25/10/2013, at 7:59 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Following meetings of global civil society which was chaired by Best Bits, there have been some slight changes to the text and I will ask Jeremy to please share it here. > > Yes here is the final proposed text. There was a question whether to launch it today, but that is probably moot since the Best Bits website is down? > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, recognize that we are in a critical moment for the Internet Governance regime, in which the increasing use of surveillance mechanisms pose a challenge the whole community to tackle. Proactive action is required to restore trust and to ensure human rights are respected and uphold. We remain committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. > > This requires: > The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. > The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. > A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. > The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. > We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, it is crucial that civil society is centrally involved at every step of the decision-making process. > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 24 20:20:40 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:20:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> Am Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:03:06 +0800 schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > On 25/10/2013, at 7:59 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > Following meetings of global civil society which was chaired by > > Best Bits, there have been some slight changes to the text and I > > will ask Jeremy to please share it here. > > Yes here is the final proposed text. There was a question whether to > launch it today, but that is probably moot since the Best Bits > website is down? We could launch it on igcaucus.org - since this hasn't gone through a formal IGC consensus process, it wouldn't be an IGC statement, but in view of the fact that according to our Charter IGC is to be, among other things, “a forum for advocacy”, we can certainly put it up as a sign-on statement. Thoughts? Greetings, Norbert > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > world, recognize that we are in a critical moment for the Internet > Governance regime, in which the increasing use of surveillance > mechanisms pose a challenge the whole community to tackle. Proactive > action is required to restore trust and to ensure human rights are > respected and uphold. We remain committed to the development of an > open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our > hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in > 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, > participation and decision making from its inception. > > This requires: > The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is > required to support an inclusive, people-centric, > development-oriented information society. We believe that this > requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in > that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, > and that it protects and promotes human rights. The full > participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the > meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. A strengthened Internet > Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance > arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked > with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. The event should extend > beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and > seek to produce actionable outputs. Modalities should be developed to > allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate > on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. > We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend > meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a > variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind > of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, > inclusive and participatory debate, it is crucial that civil society > is centrally involved at every step of the decision-making process. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 20:21:19 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:21:19 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17F97FF3-2E28-4389-89B4-F29405BB5FB9@gmail.com> P.S what i have been hearing in the corridors is that there will be a mailing list designed to discuss how the Dynamic Coalition is going to organize itself. Those who sit on the Steering committee in interim leadership will not continue in their positions once the final candidates are fielded by their respective constituencies. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 25, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > >> On Oct 25, 2013, at 5:56 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >> A long as Icann behaves as just a stakeholder among stakeholders in the summit's preparatory process, there will be no rupture. > The dynamic coalition or whatever the group will be is where it will be coordinated by representatives of various constituencies. As Global civil society, it will mean agreeing and identifying a transparent process where design a mechanism to nominate representatives to the Steering committee. This will also mean that we need to agree on the criteria of selection. > > In the interim, there will be people who sit as representatives until November, 2013 when global civil society, alongwith other stakeholders be asked to field representatives. When the selection process to the CSTD occurred, it was decided by APC that the IGC was no longer competent to conduct selections. Similarly, we can have a situation where Best Bits can push forward the nominations. However for there to be legitimacy, transparency in the process, all civil society organisations need to work together to decide what mechanism we will use to run the selection process. The Government of Brazil is comfortable with working with Brazil civil society representatives and they will be liaisons in relations with the host government as has been happening. They are doing a fantastic job. > > On the other hand, on the issue of the Dynamic Coalition, there has to be dialogue on considerations of selection to allow for diversity into feeding into the Agenda and driving the discussions of what our constituents as global civil society want. > > > >> >> >> >> ------------ >> C. A. Afonso >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Milton L Mueller >> Date: 24-10-2013 16:43 (GMT-03:00) >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" >> Subject: RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> >> Carlos >> I hope the Brazilians are not annoyed enough to rupture their budding partnership with Fadi. Yesterday I was at the Wilson Center at an event run by the Brazil Institute there regarding Brazil's vision for Internet governance. The consensus among the Br people speaking there was that while President Dilma will go nationalistic in certain ways as a reaction to NSA, that she and Brazil as a whole are backing away from their idea that the ITU should take over names and numbers. If only folks would concentrate on that solvable problem of the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability, this flirtation between ICANN and BR might produce a healthy offspring. >> >> MM >> >> p.s., hope you are recovering from the monkey bites >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] >> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:28 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake >> Cc: Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> "Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or >> taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the >> objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit >> shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these >> "relationships". >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to. >> > >> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? >> > >> > Bill >> > >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> >> >> This requires: >> >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. >> >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >> >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. >> >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. >> > >> > >> > >> > ********************************************************** >> > William J. Drake >> > International Fellow & Lecturer >> > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> > University of Zurich, Switzerland >> > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> > ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> > www.williamdrake.org >> > *********************************************************** >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 20:22:08 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:22:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6DEC2749-992D-4673-B1B5-C276BC786DCC@gmail.com> i suggest putting it on as a sign on statement. good idea... Sent from my iPad > On Oct 25, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Am Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:03:06 +0800 > schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > >> On 25/10/2013, at 7:59 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Following meetings of global civil society which was chaired by >>> Best Bits, there have been some slight changes to the text and I >>> will ask Jeremy to please share it here. >> >> Yes here is the final proposed text. There was a question whether to >> launch it today, but that is probably moot since the Best Bits >> website is down? > > We could launch it on igcaucus.org - since this hasn't gone through a > formal IGC consensus process, it wouldn't be an IGC statement, but in > view of the fact that according to our Charter IGC is to be, among > other things, “a forum for advocacy”, we can certainly put it up as a > sign-on statement. > > Thoughts? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >> world, recognize that we are in a critical moment for the Internet >> Governance regime, in which the increasing use of surveillance >> mechanisms pose a challenge the whole community to tackle. Proactive >> action is required to restore trust and to ensure human rights are >> respected and uphold. We remain committed to the development of an >> open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our >> hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in >> 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, >> participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is >> required to support an inclusive, people-centric, >> development-oriented information society. We believe that this >> requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in >> that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, >> and that it protects and promotes human rights. The full >> participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the >> meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. A strengthened Internet >> Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance >> arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked >> with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. The event should extend >> beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and >> seek to produce actionable outputs. Modalities should be developed to >> allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate >> on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend >> meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a >> variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind >> of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, >> inclusive and participatory debate, it is crucial that civil society >> is centrally involved at every step of the decision-making process. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 24 20:28:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:28:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0DCFDA61-9172-4C18-8174-B3634EBD89B1@ciroap.org> On 25/10/2013, at 8:15 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > When the selection process to the CSTD occurred, it was decided by APC that the IGC was no longer competent to conduct selections. I don't think that's what happened. APC was approached by the Chair of the CSTD WG - if I'm not wrong. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 24 20:31:13 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:31:13 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <6DEC2749-992D-4673-B1B5-C276BC786DCC@gmail.com> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> <6DEC2749-992D-4673-B1B5-C276BC786DCC@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 25/10/2013, at 8:22 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > i suggest putting it on as a sign on statement. good idea... If that is done, then we could copy it back to the Best Bits site once it is back up. Meanwhile, endorsements could just be expressed by email. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 20:33:04 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:33:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <0DCFDA61-9172-4C18-8174-B3634EBD89B1@ciroap.org> References: <0DCFDA61-9172-4C18-8174-B3634EBD89B1@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5EF2D115-5ED2-44C1-84F7-34047F13A796@gmail.com> > On Oct 25, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 25/10/2013, at 8:15 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> When the selection process to the CSTD occurred, it was decided by APC that the IGC was no longer competent to conduct selections. > > I don't think that's what happened. APC was approached by the Chair of the CSTD WG - if I'm not wrong. > sala: Yes they were approached by the chair of the CSTD > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Oct 24 20:34:10 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:34:10 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> <6DEC2749-992D-4673-B1B5-C276BC786DCC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <848E156C-2D73-4D0C-B962-CD26AFA4CD8F@gmail.com> > On Oct 25, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 25/10/2013, at 8:22 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> i suggest putting it on as a sign on statement. good idea... > > > If that is done, then we could copy it back to the Best Bits site once it is back up. Meanwhile, endorsements could just be expressed by email. > Aboslutely, it can be mirrored...the more publication the better. > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 24 20:35:52 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:35:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131025023552.3d5e0d0e@swan.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Yes here is the final proposed text. There was a question whether to > launch it today, but that is probably moot since the Best Bits > website is down? > > We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > world, recognize that we are in a critical moment for the Internet > Governance regime, in which the increasing use of surveillance > mechanisms pose a challenge the whole community to tackle. Proactive > action is required to restore trust and to ensure human rights are > respected and uphold. small correction: change "uphold" to "upheld" Greetings, Norbert > We remain committed to the development of an > open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our > hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in > 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, > participation and decision making from its inception. > > This requires: > The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is > required to support an inclusive, people-centric, > development-oriented information society. We believe that this > requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in > that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, > and that it protects and promotes human rights. The full > participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the > meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. A strengthened Internet > Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance > arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked > with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. The event should extend > beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and > seek to produce actionable outputs. Modalities should be developed to > allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate > on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. > We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend > meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a > variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind > of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, > inclusive and participatory debate, it is crucial that civil society > is centrally involved at every step of the decision-making process. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Oct 24 20:47:00 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:47:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B29FD5A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Not having been there to witness whatever transpired, my 2 reais of cheap seat advice is: Everyone should be playing for the longer term since the summit is just that, there's a long road still afterward. And, if there's some easy wins which can be agreed upon, everyone can declare victory while slow progress on those poor 'orphan' issues belatedly begins. As Milton suggests, " the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability," - maybe just maybe there could be real progress there in - 7 months? Meaning, focus please, let's crack that Brazil nut if we can. : ) Not at the expense of talking about and arguing about other things; but that triumvarate is one ready for progress. Fact that ICANN and technical community i orgs are fully engaged is a feature not a bug. In my always humble view. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:15 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso Cc: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime On Oct 25, 2013, at 5:56 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: A long as Icann behaves as just a stakeholder among stakeholders in the summit's preparatory process, there will be no rupture. The dynamic coalition or whatever the group will be is where it will be coordinated by representatives of various constituencies. As Global civil society, it will mean agreeing and identifying a transparent process where design a mechanism to nominate representatives to the Steering committee. This will also mean that we need to agree on the criteria of selection. In the interim, there will be people who sit as representatives until November, 2013 when global civil society, alongwith other stakeholders be asked to field representatives. When the selection process to the CSTD occurred, it was decided by APC that the IGC was no longer competent to conduct selections. Similarly, we can have a situation where Best Bits can push forward the nominations. However for there to be legitimacy, transparency in the process, all civil society organisations need to work together to decide what mechanism we will use to run the selection process. The Government of Brazil is comfortable with working with Brazil civil society representatives and they will be liaisons in relations with the host government as has been happening. They are doing a fantastic job. On the other hand, on the issue of the Dynamic Coalition, there has to be dialogue on considerations of selection to allow for diversity into feeding into the Agenda and driving the discussions of what our constituents as global civil society want. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller > Date: 24-10-2013 16:43 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" > Subject: RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime Carlos I hope the Brazilians are not annoyed enough to rupture their budding partnership with Fadi. Yesterday I was at the Wilson Center at an event run by the Brazil Institute there regarding Brazil's vision for Internet governance. The consensus among the Br people speaking there was that while President Dilma will go nationalistic in certain ways as a reaction to NSA, that she and Brazil as a whole are backing away from their idea that the ITU should take over names and numbers. If only folks would concentrate on that solvable problem of the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability, this flirtation between ICANN and BR might produce a healthy offspring. MM p.s., hope you are recovering from the monkey bites ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:28 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake Cc: Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime "Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these "relationships". --c.a. On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to. > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > Bill > >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. > > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 24 21:03:26 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 06:33:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5269C35E.10407@itforchange.net> On Friday 25 October 2013 05:50 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Am Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:03:06 +0800 > schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > > snip > We could launch it on igcaucus.org - since this hasn't gone through a > formal IGC consensus process, it wouldn't be an IGC statement, It shoukd go through the process, and it should be an IGC statement. An effort was initiated a few days back to write an IGC statement about the Brazil meeting ad some people wanted more information and preferred a f2f meeting to understand ting... Now that has happened, the process should be resumes in the IGC.. And I am pretty sure we can agree on a text and issue it by consensus. It will a pity if IGC begins to kind of cast off its role as a consensus seeker for common positions and doing advocacy on the basis of that.. parminder > but in > view of the fact that according to our Charter IGC is to be, among > other things, “a forum for advocacy”, we can certainly put it up as a > sign-on statement. > > Thoughts? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the >> world, recognize that we are in a critical moment for the Internet >> Governance regime, in which the increasing use of surveillance >> mechanisms pose a challenge the whole community to tackle. Proactive >> action is required to restore trust and to ensure human rights are >> respected and uphold. We remain committed to the development of an >> open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our >> hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in >> 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, >> participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> This requires: >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is >> required to support an inclusive, people-centric, >> development-oriented information society. We believe that this >> requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in >> that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, >> and that it protects and promotes human rights. The full >> participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the >> meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. A strengthened Internet >> Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance >> arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked >> with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. The event should extend >> beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and >> seek to produce actionable outputs. Modalities should be developed to >> allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate >> on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend >> meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a >> variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind >> of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, >> inclusive and participatory debate, it is crucial that civil society >> is centrally involved at every step of the decision-making process. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Oct 24 21:18:59 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:18:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <5269C35E.10407@itforchange.net> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> <5269C35E.10407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6EEFFF48-052F-4BF6-936F-4D5AAB39BD71@ella.com> On 25 Oct 2013, at 09:03, parminder wrote: > It will a pity if IGC begins to kind of cast off its role as a consensus seeker for common positions and doing advocacy on the basis of that.. Until such time as the intimidation of IGC member stops, and i have filed a formal objection to the physical intimidation i was subjected to, i do not see how the IGC can continue. i beleive it is a time-out and have recommended same to a coordinator. avri -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jac at apcwomen.org Thu Oct 24 21:31:14 2013 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:31:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] Meeting invitation: Gender Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: References: <992335513.8223.1382550963971.JavaMail.nobody@jln2tc001.webex.com> <1ABBCED8BA1770409E3FAC64F95D8F900104063C@JURIST.torv.ee> Message-ID: <5269C9E2.2070309@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Please join us for the Gender Dynamic Coalition today. Time: 11:00-12:30pm Room: Kintamani 1 We will be discussing about analysis from the Gender Report Card, and an assessment of gender and women's rights in this year's IGF to plan for next year. Thanks and best, jac - -- Jac sm Kee Women's Rights Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | erotics.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSacniAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmB0AH/0OOW9+xOOFZq6twqH7VMChr GJwZUGhMPtj0g6zZ1oOjF6xyDxw0lHtjWHFgndyYeotrAnZ7CqkuvmnddO5lIYrp MQEff9IOMTMNTCXQb5t08Iz7xKFy3vFTl6Hr4nl23jkruR7xFItS97m0LjTvLRlS GEw4nYPCRF9QVClsd7K+V/aRdANq4bDfxJP3++BHfUjwZfv9QOV5xRYr4UebfXG1 ePl92t+IjiMhORlnV9OOlzvca4IDjCEZxJ+8poRcPJVYlgwCuTYzHPNdNuITEIFd 3z2vTZH0ci/znki+CZgL0yzHK6p+kq4PBxppnIZU1MZI6VMcqRKe9TIQLAPaxpE= =ASig -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jac at apcwomen.org Thu Oct 24 21:31:14 2013 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:31:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] Meeting invitation: Gender Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: References: <992335513.8223.1382550963971.JavaMail.nobody@jln2tc001.webex.com> <1ABBCED8BA1770409E3FAC64F95D8F900104063C@JURIST.torv.ee> Message-ID: <5269C9E2.90401@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Please join us for the Gender Dynamic Coalition today. Time: 11:00-12:30pm Room: Kintamani 1 We will be discussing about analysis from the Gender Report Card, and an assessment of gender and women's rights in this year's IGF to plan for next year. Thanks and best, jac - -- Jac sm Kee Women's Rights Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | erotics.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSacneAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmKLMH+QEXS/EWhQjVCQ6Edl504wz7 FCB2LsQ2t294ysZzpvG9EGsjzY+14KZjc3FyF7YSntYveC8Y1A+Ec6CjA8TggZ3r FRd1dDWDHiNZsdOVqNhRzLweLxWVS0Ocm+q1SyJdpG5DUprI8XQadzHfPRkvyTlO zz35DslM6bGxfIlKBXzvfae5jRg1ix18mpCHM0ExcpQD6d2+nGLoa9bMjsn+4okY 2IoWuumnvU22shwlw6fK9w1yuW+9V/0dGR7ls5CTN5H2U8M4EhqJ+7NocOeEfT6J Qn5fhzJlQ5h7AIyvjQSyVG4KP40yHytl/7Nld6Q1yHg5oDGKKQm/K1eXc9vX66c= =Hzx5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Thu Oct 24 21:43:57 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:43:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 25/10/2013, at 2:35 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > This is a perfect example of why I've been warning you to focus in on things the IG community actually knows something about and can do something about, such as the IANA contract and ICANN accountability, rather than posing as a global parliament and thinking that you can legislate across 27 different sectors of the economy, taxation and even national security. > > Any meeting, in Rio or elsewhere in 2014, that takes on the agenda suggested by Parminder below, will get nowhere. Not just because the issues are too diverse and there will not even be a suitable knowledge base, much less consensus on policy outcomes, but also because any such group would totally lack the authority required to address such issues. Lacking such authority, the meeting will be NO DIFFERENT from an IGF. So why do it in Rio? Why not the IGF? > > ---- > Parminder's agenda > >global public policy development in substantive areas like norms/ guidelines/ legal frameworks > >for privacy, net neutrality, taxation issues around cross border e-com, competition issues, and > >the so many other areas of public policy areas.... > ---- > > (I myself am eager to work on the "many other areas of public policy areas") I agree that the suggested list of issues above is far too broad, and in many cases dips into areas where multi-lateral government negotiations are actually the appropriate process, and MSH processes can hope at best to inform (like taxation). > > Ironically, here in Washington I also heard the ICANN representative talking about how the Rio meeting should address many new, "orphan" issues such as.....wait for it.....cybersecurity! Yeah, that's a problem that's going to be solved by a one off meeting with 1000 people in it, for sure.... > > I can explain this absurd position in two possible ways: first, it may be that the I* orgs would prefer that Brazil, other governments and everyone else waste their time chatting about "global public policy development" (i.e., duplicating the IGF) rather than actually solving ICANN's accountability and IANA problem. After all, we've seen what IGF has accomplished in 7 years. A neo-IGF will do the same, but might manage to maintain the illusion for governments that something new is happening. > > Another, slightly less cynical explanation is that they want this Rio meeting to pre-empt the ITU plenipot, as some states still want the ITU to do cybersecurity. So apparently these people are so irrationally afraid of the ITU that they would rather push vital areas of policy into hastily thrown together and poorly designed multistakeholder processes just so they can say that the ITU doesn't need to do it. Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 24 21:44:58 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 03:44:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil Message-ID: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> [With IGC coordinator hat on] The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html as a sign-on statement. At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether different text as a statement of the IGC. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 24 22:19:20 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:19:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> +1 on all points, David On Oct 25, 2013, at 9:43 AM, David Cake wrote: > Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). > > This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 24 22:39:55 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:39:55 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> Hi Mawaki Sorry not to see this earlier. Events have overtaken things in the meanwhile, we met with Fadi and it was useful, so there's not much point spending cycles deconstructing the misconnects at this point. Cheers Bill On Oct 24, 2013, at 5:50 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi, > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim wrote: > Bill, > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing > > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group > > wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked > > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed > > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get > > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people > > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable > > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to > > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the > > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship > > to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do > > shouldn't be able to. > > Sums it up nicely. > > > > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do > > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > good question! > > Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain? > I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past the initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct "relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the most desirable and the latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't we do both, especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of CS and those of I* orgs are not fully aligned? > > And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil meeting" as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would ask. > > > @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the > "technical community" should take over from governments. > > McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there are direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice them literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3 or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such state of affairs has implications that you did not need to state explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you agree with that (as implied by your question), then my response to you was warranted. Note that the said response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs than it is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are different. > > Cheers! > > Mawaki > > > I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and > regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in > addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes. I'm not > willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can > instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes. > > I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react. > Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions? > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 24 23:16:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:46:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5269E28B.3090005@itforchange.net> On Friday 25 October 2013 12:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > This is a perfect example of why I've been warning you to focus in on > things the IG community actually knows something about and can do > something about, such as the IANA contract and ICANN accountability, > rather than posing as a global parliament and thinking that you can > legislate across 27 different sectors of the economy, taxation and > even national security. > > Any meeting, in Rio or elsewhere in 2014, that takes on the agenda > suggested by Parminder below, will get nowhere. Not just because the > issues are too diverse and there will not even be a suitable knowledge > base, much less consensus on policy outcomes, but also because any > such group would totally lack the authority required to address such > issues. Lacking such authority, the meeting will be NO DIFFERENT from > an IGF. So why do it in Rio? Why not the IGF? > > ---- > Parminder's agenda > >global public policy development in substantive areas like norms/ > guidelines/ legal frameworks > >for privacy, net neutrality, taxation issues around cross border > e-com, competition issues, and > >the so many other areas of public policy areas.... Please read my original email... This is not my agenda, but a question to Bill/ others whether this is the intended broader area of interest of the I* community to extend ICANN model of governance to.... I addressed a question to this effect to Chris Disspain at the meeting they organised on 'Brazil meeting' and he said, yes, we are *not* talking about technical governance side only but this other side of larger IG issues would be a central focus of the Brazil meeting... Their intention of course is to try and extend the ICANN model of governance to these areas of substantive policy making. I asked Brazilians at another meeting about the scope the proposed Brazil meeting, and they too said, our intention is to address all global IG issues and not only of the technical governance kind. Personally, I dont have a problem with an international meeting solving at least one important problem of global IG - which is the oversight issue and internationalisation of tech gov system. I dont even have a problem with a meeting focussing exclusively on this one set of issues. However, any such effort should not become a cover for making no progress - or in other words, blocking progress - on the other issues that I indicated are even more important to me. parminder > ---- > > (I myself am eager to work on the "many other areas of public policy > areas") > > Ironically, here in Washington I also heard the ICANN representative > talking about how the Rio meeting should address many new, "orphan" > issues such as.....wait for it.....cybersecurity! Yeah, that's a > problem that's going to be solved by a one off meeting with 1000 > people in it, for sure.... > > I can explain this absurd position in two possible ways: first, it may > be that the I* orgs would prefer that Brazil, other governments and > everyone else waste their time chatting about "global public policy > development" (i.e., duplicating the IGF) rather than actually solving > ICANN's accountability and IANA problem. After all, we've seen what > IGF has accomplished in 7 years. A neo-IGF will do the same, but might > manage to maintain the illusion for governments that something new is > happening. > > Another, slightly less cynical explanation is that they want this Rio > meeting to pre-empt the ITU plenipot, as some states still want the > ITU to do cybersecurity. So apparently these people are so > irrationally afraid of the ITU that they would rather push vital areas > of policy into hastily thrown together and poorly designed > multistakeholder processes just so they can say that the ITU doesn't > need to do it. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 24 23:30:15 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:00:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> However, it must be said that immediate critical responses like Jeremy's email, and others supporting it, did make a significant difference. The term ' a new coalition' seems to have been withdrawn in the favour of a more neutral one - a new platform..... And the condition of having to swear by a certain MS-ist ideology is also withdrawn, and the only need is that one should be willing to engage with the emerging effort to address global IG in a meaningful way.. parminder On Friday 25 October 2013 08:09 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki > > Sorry not to see this earlier. Events have overtaken things in the > meanwhile, we met with Fadi and it was useful, so there's not much > point spending cycles deconstructing the misconnects at this point. > > Cheers > > Bill > > On Oct 24, 2013, at 5:50 PM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim > > wrote: >> >> Bill, >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake >> > wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power >> grab, a framing >> > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that >> one group >> > wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, >> they talked >> > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be >> fully agreed >> > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need >> to get >> > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to >> include people >> > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the >> desirable >> > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you >> were there to >> > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to >> coordinate with the >> > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own >> relationship >> > to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those >> who do >> > shouldn't be able to. >> >> Sums it up nicely. >> >> > >> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get >> involved, why do >> > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? >> >> good question! >> >> >> Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting >> about this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain? >> I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS >> meeting "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once >> we get past the initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too >> should have joint meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS >> processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end >> states" to use your words. But frankly, you sound like it's EITHER >> (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct "relationship to the Brazil >> meeting"), with a hint that the former is the most desirable and the >> latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't we do both, >> especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of CS and >> those of I* orgs are not fully aligned? >> >> And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil >> meeting" as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with >> summits :-) but since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, >> I thought I would ask. >> >> >> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I >> say the >> "technical community" should take over from governments. >> >> >> McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I >> know. But what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what >> Jeremy wrote in the first paragraph of his email. I just contend that >> there is no way one can fully and accurately understand what you >> wrote in abstraction, without linking it to what you were responding >> to. And once one does that, there are direct implications to what >> you're saying even if you didn't voice them literally. That's also >> part of the complexity of conversations involving 3 or more pragmatic >> (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't question >> Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and just >> asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to >> start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, >> in my response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, >> then such state of affairs has implications that you did not need to >> state explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you >> are indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if >> such (as described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you >> agree with that (as implied by your question), then my response to >> you was warranted. Note that the said response is more of a >> commentary on the said state of affairs than it is about what you >> personally think ultimately --in case the two are different. >> >> Cheers! >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and >> regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in >> addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes. >> I'm not >> willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can >> instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes. >> >> I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react. >> Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions? >> >> -- >> 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.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 25 01:57:29 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:57:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20131025075729.1c1cef58@swan.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > However, it must be said that immediate critical responses like > Jeremy's email, and others supporting it, did make a significant > difference. The term ' a new coalition' seems to have been withdrawn > in the favour of a more neutral one - a new platform..... And the > condition of having to swear by a certain MS-ist ideology is also > withdrawn, and the only need is that one should be willing to engage > with the emerging effort to address global IG in a meaningful way.. +1 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 25 00:21:50 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:51:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <6EEFFF48-052F-4BF6-936F-4D5AAB39BD71@ella.com> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> <5269C35E.10407@itforchange.net> <6EEFFF48-052F-4BF6-936F-4D5AAB39BD71@ella.com> Message-ID: <5269F1DE.4000203@itforchange.net> On Friday 25 October 2013 06:48 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 25 Oct 2013, at 09:03, parminder wrote: > >> It will a pity if IGC begins to kind of cast off its role as a consensus seeker for common positions and doing advocacy on the basis of that.. > > Until such time as the intimidation of IGC member stops, and i have filed a formal objection to the physical intimidation i was subjected to, i do not see how the IGC can continue. > > i beleive it is a time-out and have recommended same to a coordinator. Not able to fully understand the context and implication of the above, but is it being suggested that IGC is somehow comatose and declared non functional... Co-coordinators, please let us now... parminder > > avri > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Oct 25 02:33:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:33:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B29FD5A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B29FD5A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Truer words were never spoken, well, typed. --srs (iPad) > On 24-Oct-2013, at 20:47, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Not having been there to witness whatever transpired, my 2 reais of cheap seat advice is: > > Everyone should be playing for the longer term since the summit is just that, there's a long road still afterward. > > And, if there's some easy wins which can be agreed upon, everyone can declare victory while slow progress on those poor 'orphan' issues belatedly begins. > > As Milton suggests, " the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability," - maybe just maybe there could be real progress there in - 7 months? Meaning, focus please, let's crack that Brazil nut if we can. : ) > > Not at the expense of talking about and arguing about other things; but that triumvarate is one ready for progress. Fact that ICANN and technical community i orgs are fully engaged is a feature not a bug. > > In my always humble view. > > Lee > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:15 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso > Cc: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime > > > > On Oct 25, 2013, at 5:56 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> A long as Icann behaves as just a stakeholder among stakeholders in the summit's preparatory process, there will be no rupture. > The dynamic coalition or whatever the group will be is where it will be coordinated by representatives of various constituencies. As Global civil society, it will mean agreeing and identifying a transparent process where design a mechanism to nominate representatives to the Steering committee. This will also mean that we need to agree on the criteria of selection. > > In the interim, there will be people who sit as representatives until November, 2013 when global civil society, alongwith other stakeholders be asked to field representatives. When the selection process to the CSTD occurred, it was decided by APC that the IGC was no longer competent to conduct selections. Similarly, we can have a situation where Best Bits can push forward the nominations. However for there to be legitimacy, transparency in the process, all civil society organisations need to work together to decide what mechanism we will use to run the selection process. The Government of Brazil is comfortable with working with Brazil civil society representatives and they will be liaisons in relations with the host government as has been happening. They are doing a fantastic job. > > On the other hand, on the issue of the Dynamic Coalition, there has to be dialogue on considerations of selection to allow for diversity into feeding into the Agenda and driving the discussions of what our constituents as global civil society want. > > > >> >> >> >> ------------ >> C. A. Afonso >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Milton L Mueller >> Date: 24-10-2013 16:43 (GMT-03:00) >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" >> Subject: RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> >> Carlos >> I hope the Brazilians are not annoyed enough to rupture their budding partnership with Fadi. Yesterday I was at the Wilson Center at an event run by the Brazil Institute there regarding Brazil's vision for Internet governance. The consensus among the Br people speaking there was that while President Dilma will go nationalistic in certain ways as a reaction to NSA, that she and Brazil as a whole are backing away from their idea that the ITU should take over names and numbers. If only folks would concentrate on that solvable problem of the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability, this flirtation between ICANN and BR might produce a healthy offspring. >> >> MM >> >> p.s., hope you are recovering from the monkey bites >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] >> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:28 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake >> Cc: Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> "Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or >> taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the >> objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit >> shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these >> "relationships". >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do shouldn't be able to. >> > >> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? >> > >> > Bill >> > >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 >> >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime >> >> >> >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally misplaced and ill-advised. >> >> >> >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. >> >> >> >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: >> >> >> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. >> >> >> >> This requires: >> >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human rights. >> >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. >> >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. >> >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the preparatory process to final outputs. >> >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society participation. >> > >> > >> > >> > ********************************************************** >> > William J. Drake >> > International Fellow & Lecturer >> > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> > University of Zurich, Switzerland >> > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> > ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), >> > www.williamdrake.org >> > *********************************************************** >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 02:36:07 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:36:07 +0700 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B29FD5A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Truer words were never spoken, well, typed. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 24-Oct-2013, at 20:47, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Not having been there to witness whatever transpired, my 2 reais of cheap > seat advice is: > > Everyone should be playing for the longer term since the summit is just > that, there's a long road still afterward. > > And, if there's some easy wins which can be agreed upon, everyone can > declare victory while slow progress on those poor 'orphan' issues belatedly > begins. > > As Milton suggests, " the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability," - > maybe just maybe there could be real progress there in - 7 months? > Meaning, focus please, let's crack that Brazil nut if we can. : ) > > Not at the expense of talking about and arguing about other things; but > that triumvarate is one ready for progress. Fact that ICANN and technical > community i orgs are fully engaged is a feature not a bug. > > In my always humble view. > > Lee > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta > Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:15 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso > *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow > lunchtime > > > > On Oct 25, 2013, at 5:56 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > A long as Icann behaves as just a stakeholder among stakeholders in the > summit's preparatory process, there will be no rupture. > > The dynamic coalition or whatever the group will be is where it will be > coordinated by representatives of various constituencies. As Global civil > society, it will mean agreeing and identifying a transparent process where > design a mechanism to nominate representatives to the Steering committee. > This will also mean that we need to agree on the criteria of selection. > > In the interim, there will be people who sit as representatives until > November, 2013 when global civil society, alongwith other stakeholders be > asked to field representatives. When the selection process to the CSTD > occurred, it was decided by APC that the IGC was no longer competent to > conduct selections. Similarly, we can have a situation where Best Bits can > push forward the nominations. However for there to be legitimacy, > transparency in the process, all civil society organisations need to work > together to decide what mechanism we will use to run the selection process. > The Government of Brazil is comfortable with working with Brazil civil > society representatives and they will be liaisons in relations with the > host government as has been happening. They are doing a fantastic job. > > On the other hand, on the issue of the Dynamic Coalition, there has to > be dialogue on considerations of selection to allow for diversity into > feeding into the Agenda and driving the discussions of what our > constituents as global civil society want. > > > > > > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Milton L Mueller > Date: 24-10-2013 16:43 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" > Subject: RE: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow > lunchtime > > > Carlos > I hope the Brazilians are not annoyed enough to rupture their budding > partnership with Fadi. Yesterday I was at the Wilson Center at an event run > by the Brazil Institute there regarding Brazil's vision for Internet > governance. The consensus among the Br people speaking there was that while > President Dilma will go nationalistic in certain ways as a reaction to NSA, > that she and Brazil as a whole are backing away from their idea that the > ITU should take over names and numbers. If only folks would concentrate on > that solvable problem of the IANA contract, US role, ICANN accountability, > this flirtation between ICANN and BR might produce a healthy offspring. > > MM > > p.s., hope you are recovering from the monkey bites > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ > ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:28 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake > Cc: Best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow > lunchtime > > "Coordinate" with quite distinct leverages means being taken over or > taking over. I think Fadi and the "techies" went too far and the > objective is to control the meeting agenda. The BR delegation was a bit > shocked and certainly quite annoyed. Let us be careful with these > "relationships". > > --c.a. > > On 10/23/2013 10:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > > > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a > framing that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one > group wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they > talked and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully > agreed goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own > relationship to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that > those who do shouldn't be able to. > > > > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, > why do "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > > > > Bill > > > >> > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy > Malcolm > >> Gesendet: Mi 23.10.2013 10:57 > >> An: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Betreff: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow > lunchtime > >> > >> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting > that took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create > a "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting > the primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > models.. The summit has been downplayed - it is now no longer a summit but > just a "meeting", and Brazil has been told that its objectives should not > be to create solutions. Chris Disspain stressed that the meeting is "not > the end game", and that "we seem to have the reins of that meeting, we need > to keep hold of those reins." The overall approach really chilled me - it > was like the WCIT campaign on steroids, asserting a clear leadership role > for the technical community, and at a time like this, it is totally > misplaced and ill-advised. > >> > >> So, firstly, we need to strategise urgently about our response. This > will need to happen in private, so - sorry to lurkers from other > stakeholder groups - those in Bali will be having a private meeting > tomorrow from 1-2:30pm in room Uluwatu 2, also known as Bilateral 6. > Thanks to Gene and Matthew for suggesting and helping arrange the meeting. > >> > >> Second, can we launch our letter on the summit a little early? I'll > ask the meeting tomorrow to make a final call, but for those who are not in > Bali, please let me know whether you have any objection to us opening this > for endorsements tomorrow, rather than on Friday: > >> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the > world, committed to the development of an open Internet and its use for > advancing human rights, express our hope and expectation that the Internet > governance summit in Brazil in 2014 incorporate a multistakeholder model of > agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. > >> > >> This requires: > >> The event should discuss what Internet governance architecture is > required to support an inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented > information society. We believe that this requires at the very minimum that > such a structure is democratic, in that it should be inclusive of all > countries and all stakeholders, and that it protects and promotes human > rights. > >> The full participation of civil society stakeholders in planning and in > the meeting should be guaranteed and resourced. > >> A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the > future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and > it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate. > >> The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of > good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs in line with the > initial motivations for organizing the summit, to which all stakeholders > will commit. Modalities should be developed to allow all stakeholders, > including remote participants, to participate on an equal footing from the > preparatory process to final outputs. > >> We stress that opening doors for more stakeholders to attend meetings > is not sufficient. Multistakeholderism has been used with a variety of > meanings, sometimes only referring to a very limited kind of openness and > consultation. If the goal is to achieve an open, inclusive and > participatory debate, more is needed to ensure meaningful civil society > participation. > > > > > > > > ********************************************************** > > William J. Drake > > International Fellow & Lecturer > > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > > University of Zurich, Switzerland > > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > > www.williamdrake.org > > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Oct 25 05:05:58 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1382691958.60786.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Norbert Please include my name as an individuals endorsement. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah IGF Pakistan >________________________________ > From: Norbert Bollow >To: IGC >Sent: Friday, 25 October 2013, 6:44 >Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil > > >[With IGC coordinator hat on] > >The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both >on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > >http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > >as a sign-on statement. > > >At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the >IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, >conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a >statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether >different text as a statement of the IGC. > >Greetings, >Norbert > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 05:09:06 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:09:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <1382691958.60786.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> <1382691958.60786.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Please include Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet Antonio Medina Gómez 2013/10/25 Imran Ahmed Shah > Dear Norbert > Please include my name as an individuals endorsement. > > Thanks > > Imran Ahmed Shah > IGF Pakistan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Norbert Bollow > *To:* IGC > *Sent:* Friday, 25 October 2013, 6:44 > *Subject:* [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet > Governance Summit in Brazil > > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 25 07:43:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:43:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update Re: Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil Message-ID: <20131025134334.5a248205@swan.bollow.ch> Dear all Here's a quick update in regard to the statement at http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html : We currently have 17 organizational and 12 individual endorsements, with a very nice international spread. I think it would be important to make all the relevant national and regional IGF mailing lists aware of this, together with a good explanation of the background of what is going on. Is someone willing to write up an introductory text suitable for bringing people up-to-date who have not been following things closely? I envision that such a background text should be posted, together with the link to the sign-on statement, to all available mailing lists of national and regional IGF and other Internet policy related networks. I see the purpose of this not only in getting additional endorsements, but even more in getting people to start thinking about what is going on here, and about what kind of role they might want to take in this. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From r.deibert at utoronto.ca Fri Oct 25 09:08:31 2013 From: r.deibert at utoronto.ca (Ronald Deibert) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:08:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] Monitoring Information Controls During the Bali IGF Message-ID: Dear IG list Citizen Lab is publishing a series of blog posts/reports on "Monitoring Information Controls During the Bali IGF." There is a framing post here, which we published at the beginning of the IGF 2013 event: https://citizenlab.org/2013/10/monitoring-information-controls-bali-igf/ And then three subsequent reports cover the following topics: IGF 2013 (Part 1 of 4): Overview of Indonesian Internet Infrastructure and Governance: https://citizenlab.org/2013/10/igf-2013-an-overview-of-indonesian-internet-infrastructure-and-governance IGF 2013 (Part 2 of 4): Analyzing Content Controls https://citizenlab.org/2013/10/igf-2013-analyzing-content-controls-indonesia IGF 2013: (Part 3 of 4): Exploring Communications Surveillance in Indonesia https://citizenlab.org/2013/10/igf-2013-exploring-communications-surveillance-indonesia A final post on the IGF event will be forthcoming. We undertook the research and wrote these posts during the IGF event itself, using a variety of methods, with the collaboration of our Indonesian civil society partners (who wish to remain anonymous at this time). We would also like to thank Collin Anderson for his contribution of OONI probe tests to the content controls post, and Sinta Dewi Rosadi and Privacy International for their assistance on legal issues around wiretaps and surveillance. Ronald Deibert Director, the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto (416) 946-8916 PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab r.deibert at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Oct 25 09:34:23 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:34:23 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Cheha, etc. In-Reply-To: <2AC06CE0-2064-4A4A-BA1D-2B7092BDE54F@virtualized.org> References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0MV200FC4O373AG0@nk11p00mm-smtpin010.mac.com> <9096D3FD-330C-47C9-B7DA-45F3869D84AC@virtualized.org> <0MV5000MWFUC5TB0@n k11p00mm-smtpin006.mac.com> <2AC06CE0-2064-4A4A-BA1D-2B7092BDE54F@virtualized.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Oct 25 14:10:16 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:10:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at isoc-mu.org Fri Oct 25 14:28:11 2013 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:28:11 +0400 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> <1382691958.60786.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003a01ced1af$f60d93d0$e228bb70$@isoc-mu.org> Please include my individual endorsement Thanks and best regards Dave Kissoondoyal From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Antonio Medina Gómez Sent: 25 October 2013 13:09 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil Please include Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet Antonio Medina Gómez 2013/10/25 Imran Ahmed Shah > Dear Norbert Please include my name as an individuals endorsement. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah IGF Pakistan _____ From: Norbert Bollow > To: IGC > Sent: Friday, 25 October 2013, 6:44 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil [With IGC coordinator hat on] The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html as a sign-on statement. At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether different text as a statement of the IGC. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From langdonorr at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 15:04:05 2013 From: langdonorr at gmail.com (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:04:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <1382691958.60786.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> <1382691958.60786.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Feel free to add mine as an individual as well... Cheryl Langdon-Orr On Oct 25, 2013 5:06 PM, "Imran Ahmed Shah" wrote: > Dear Norbert > Please include my name as an individuals endorsement. > > Thanks > > Imran Ahmed Shah > IGF Pakistan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Norbert Bollow > *To:* IGC > *Sent:* Friday, 25 October 2013, 6:44 > *Subject:* [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet > Governance Summit in Brazil > > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 25 17:33:01 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:33:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ,<0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake > wrote: Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening? More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 18:01:33 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:01:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> Message-ID: McTim, Thanks for the clarification. I may have made an error, but I did not "decide" to do so. Since the segment we're discussing was the very first lines of your response to a message, inserted after the very first paragraph of the latter, and you kept the whole paragraph in place and in block, then my mis-reading becomes very likely. The only two ways I see which would have avoided any ambiguity are i) that you cut out the first section of the paragraph that was not concerned by your response which followed (since you didn't have any earlier response to insert between that first section and the latter part of the para.) or ii) that there is an objective, material impossibility for the reader to associate the meaning of your response to the whole paragraph, including the first part of it. Short of both, my reading becomes quite plausible. Otherwise... they are forming a new coalition that will create a > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > models. Of course this is a good thing as long as the coalition is truly multistakeholder (which is key here), isn't that what all our efforts have been about? I did not think one second that Jeremy was complaining about that (again, assuming full MS-ism is granted), or would object to that --isn't that obvious? That's, for instance, something I wouldn't find enough time during the day to question, but then again I may be wrong since it's never wise to believe 100 percent that one can speak for somebody else. As I understood it, the whole para. was intended to summarily compensate for the reporting which J. started the para. saying he hadn't have a chance to do --that's particularly and literally the case for the latter half, the first one being a more personal assessment of the dynamic at the meeting. So I guess this whole sub-thread is just about the way we read and write stuff... that's why I'm always open to people, including myself, clarifying what they mean. At this point though, I think we have enough clarity as to where the misunderstanding came from which led us here, so I rest my case. Cheers, mawaki On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:50 AM, McTim wrote: > Mawaki, > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting > about > > this without CS being involved? > > I would say they have not, as I consider them to be part of CS, but I > know that i am in the minority on that one. > > And you know that for certain? > > I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting > > "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past > the > > initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint > meetings > > with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have different > > ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But frankly, you > sound > > like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct "relationship to > the > > Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the most desirable and > the > > latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't we do both, > especially if > > there remain issues on which the objectives of CS and those of I* orgs > are > > not fully aligned? > > > > And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil > meeting" > > as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) > but > > since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would > ask. > > > >> > >> > >> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the > >> "technical community" should take over from governments. > > > > > > McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. > But > > what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the > > first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can > > fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without > > linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there > are > > direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice them > > literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving > 3 > > or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't > > question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and > > just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to > > start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my > > response to your question. > > I see your error. You have decided incorrectly, that I reacted to > Jeremy's' take on what went on in the meeting, when in fact, I reacted > to the second half of the para: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting > that > > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will > create a > > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting > the > > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > > models. > > It is here that I asked why that was a bad thing referring to the > grass-roots coalition/primacy of the MS model. > > If I had been reacting to the first bit (which seemed to be > flame-bait, and thus best avoided), it would have looked like this: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting > that > > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing > > power-grab in progress > > > > - they are forming a new coalition that will create a > > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting > the > > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" > > models. > > > And if his rendition is accurate, then such state > > of affairs has implications that you did not need to state explicitly. By > > asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are indicating that you > > agreed with such state of affairs. > > See above. None of us can possibly find enough time during the day to > explicitly state all of our disagreements with what others write on > this list. > > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 18:10:29 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:10:29 +0500 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <00746280-8942-4DBE-B0BE-C440BAB933E9@gmail.com> You may include my endorsement. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 20:00:14 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:00:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton et al., Good to see you resurface, MM :-) Oh "Lawd"! What trouble have I got myself into??? A reminder on context... I'm not in Bali. We received a note from one of us leading the CS organizing in Bali that the dynamic in the i orgs was essentially a power grabbing one, tech vs. govt-centric (was not clear where the non-tech CS fits in all that.) Then we see another person response asking (as I understood it then, but this has been corrected since) whether CS shouldn't feel okay with that. So what I was reacting to, basically, is the over simplification you're denouncing which precisely, IMHO, leads to believe that "govts are so evil that just kicking them out of the tent (and replacing them by tech or whoever, for that matter) would resolve our problems." I didn't defined the terms of the discussion. But since it was reportedly about tech (and)(vs) govt, I sought to (or at least I thought I was trying) to bring some nuance in the discussion by saying on the one hand govt is not all evil, may be useful to something and on the other tech does not have solution for everything, can get it wrong. That's not finger pointing or over simplified categorization. If anyone thought I was bashing the tech community, please amend the record --that's just not who I am. But I'm ready to tell them, no single stakeholder group is perfect or can get it right by itself, and we need to do this together. Actually, if you ask me, I believe we are more capable of effecting change if tech and CS would work intelligently together, as opposed to being anti-tech. Now regarding the history lesson, yeah I learned a couple of things about the history of the 20th century in junior high, in senior high, and had read quite a bit about it at least for years into college, thank you! For some of us in Africa, even our parents or grand parent also fought in the 2 big wars that shaped that century, particularly the WW2 in order to liberate France and stem the tide of Nazism taking over UK. I guess that might have been a good reason to justify those episodes in far-away lands being featured so prominently in our curricula. So yes, I know a couple of things about Pearl Harbor, the Manhattan Project and its result, Japan devastated and Europe in ruins, the Marshall Plan, the Malta conference and the beginning of the saga of the United Nations and related specialized organizations, led by... the United States. Let me just add this. The notion of HR was not new... English revolutions... the French revolution... and the US founding fathers tapping into the same ideas to shape their constitution... WW2 was the opportunity to make those ideas universal, and the only large country that was standing tall then, with a newly found unique power on the world stage as a consequence of the war -- the US -- did just that and that was a good thing. And guess what, they didn't do it by calling for another revolution (I guess the war was enough) or for a multistakeholder summit with CS and others. It was with its attributes and power as nation-state that the US was able to "ram the UDHR down to everyone's throats," particularly the other governments' and get them to sign a treaty! Can you believe that? An international treaty, something that only sovereign governments sign into a legal instrument. Now, I think the USG has always been one of the smartest we've had around the world, in abstraction of whether you are on their side or not (they just happen to do some dumb things once in a while, like any other governments many of whom do worse, but that's another story.) So I tend to believe they must have had some good reasons to spend their political capital on getting a treaty that included HRs, as opposed to say, making it just a plain, non-binding Declaration like in most previous historical occurrences. Epilogue: I haven't re-read myself in the email you are responding to, but taking it from you MM, in my phrase "a world led by governments" referring to UDHR, the plural for "governments" was meant to be generic --not that all govts labored hard to give birth to UDHR as a gift to the world, but something like the following: an era where national sovereigns were mostly in charge of world affairs, the stage of world affairs was mainly organized around them. USG is a govt -- one of them -- and it did some good things in the aftermath of WW2. History didn't stop with the UDHR treaty however, and USG is not the only govt in history which has done something good about or with UDHR. I'm sure in the latter part of the 20th century, some govts who caught up with the whole idea might have used their clout or some leverage with weaker but less HR-friendly governments (for instance, the kind of govts that wouldn't mind opening the fire on their citizens/CS in the streets --does that ring a bell still in the 21st century?) in order to have them pay a little more regard to the HRs of their citizens. Hence, me saying govts (the ones which are so willing), with the power or clout that is only theirs, may also help "uphold" or respect HRs -- or whatever I wrote along those lines that made you jump off your chair, MM. Sorry folks for the length of my response. It really is a tough thing to fully and accurately express what one means (as to avoid misunderstanding) while keeping it short, when the language in use doesn't soar from one's guts, i.e not one's natural first language. Bearing with this is part of the small price you have to pay for a relatively inclusive and diverse forum, to whatever degree, the highest price being borne by the writer. So are my explanations clear enough, MM, or should I put together a commercial a la Christine O'Donnell (the "I am not a witch" tea-partier) in order to claim "I am not a government idolater, nor am I an anti-techies"? mawaki On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > All > > It would be a mistake to let this discussion degenerate into > categorizations of empty stakeholder abstractions: governments as > "upholders of human rights" (cough!), technical community as good or bad, > etc. This is one of the truly silly things about the decision the I* > organizations made to label the proper approach to Internet governance as > "the multistakeholder model." As if there were "the" single model (there > isn't), as if multistakeholderism actually described IETF (it doesn't), as > if the presence of multiple stakeholders in a process automatically means > good, freedom and efficiency-enhancing governance (it doesn't). > > Talking about "techies" - either pro or con - is just not helpful at > this point. Same goes for claims regarding "civil society." Better to talk > about specific values and objectives and how VERY SPECIFIC institutional > mechanisms contribute to them, or not. There is some legitimate space for > concern about who is represented in meetings and decision making, and I > very much do share Jeremy's concern about the I* organizations running away > with the ball, but finger-pointing regarding stakeholder categories is > pointless. > > A bit of a historical correction for you also, Mawaki. It was a world > led by the _United States_ government that gave us the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights. Not a world led by "governments." We rammed it > down everyone's throats, and anyway the formulation of and advocacy for > rights comes from a vibrant civil society under certain kinds of > constitutional regimes, not from states as states. The US had just won WW2, > and had unparalleled hegemony over Europe, Japan and many other parts of > the world. It never would have happened otherwise. I don't think that > lesson has any clear relevance to current discussions regarding IG, but if > you think it does, perhaps you can explain in more detail. > > --MM > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Mawaki Chango [ > kichango at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:53 PM > *To:* Internet Governance; McTim > *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow > lunchtime > > Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the > "technical" community. > Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs earlier > --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. > > McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it > say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means > "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore, > I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but > I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was > also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative > tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into > seeing those norms upheld. > > Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best > interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me > since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that > designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly, > so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's > no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and > accurate user guide for... users! It is my sense that they are mostly > impressed with impressing their peers, as is often the case with minority > groups of meritocrats. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the > opportunity to shift from "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should > be a matter of concern to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. > > I'm just saying -- "on equal footing" my dear! > > Mawaki > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, McTim wrote: > >> Jeremy, >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >> wrote: >> > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting >> that >> > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing >> > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will >> create a >> > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting >> the >> > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" >> > models. >> >> CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it >> gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Oct 25 20:04:00 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:04:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ,<0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake wrote: > > Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). > > It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. > And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening? Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either. > More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves. > > This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. > > > I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 20:09:30 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:09:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: <6EEFFF48-052F-4BF6-936F-4D5AAB39BD71@ella.com> References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> <5269C35E.10407@itforchange.net> <6EEFFF48-052F-4BF6-936F-4D5AAB39BD71@ella.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 25 Oct 2013, at 09:03, parminder wrote: > >> It will a pity if IGC begins to kind of cast off its role as a consensus seeker for common positions and doing advocacy on the basis of that.. > > > Until such time as the intimidation of IGC member stops, and i have filed a formal objection to the physical intimidation i was subjected to, i do not see how the IGC can continue. +1 -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Oct 25 20:53:57 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:53:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> , <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> On 25/10/2013, at 2:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > All > > It would be a mistake to let this discussion degenerate into categorizations of empty stakeholder abstractions: governments as "upholders of human rights" (cough!), technical community as good or bad, etc. This is one of the truly silly things about the decision the I* organizations made to label the proper approach to Internet governance as "the multistakeholder model." Yes. We have a range of quite different models that might be called multi-stakeholder, and an even broader range of mechanisms that can be made to fit into a multi-stakeholder ecosystem without, itself, being directly multi-stakeholder. > As if there were "the" single model (there isn't), as if multistakeholderism actually described IETF (it doesn't), as if the presence of multiple stakeholders in a process automatically means good, freedom and efficiency-enhancing governance (it doesn't). No one who has closely observed the ICANN GNSO would ever think multi-stakeholderism automatically translates into goodness, freedom and efficiency. Multi-stakeholderism is a clumsy label. Parts of the current system are formally multi-stakeholder, parts are very open, and parts are perhaps a closely guarded club that is justified by some notion of 'meritocracy' (and parts - such as the GAC - are even multi-lateral). I argued the point in Bali several times that everyone is much clearer on what we are avoiding (government centric multilateralism) than what we are seeking. And that is just fine at this point. If we are still that unclear after the Brazil meeting, then that might be more of a problem. > Talking about "techies" - either pro or con - is just not helpful at this point. Same goes for claims regarding "civil society." Better to talk about specific values and objectives and how VERY SPECIFIC institutional mechanisms contribute to them, or not. There is some legitimate space for concern about who is represented in meetings and decision making, and I very much do share Jeremy's concern about the I* organizations running away with the ball, but finger-pointing regarding stakeholder categories is pointless. The 'Technical Community Role in Global Internet Governance' workshop on Thursday made it fairly clear that the division between technical community and civil society (or other stakeholder groups) is a fairly artificial one, with many of us filling a variety of different roles at different times, and technical organisations often acting very much as part of civil society. And with many 'techies' in civil society or other stakeholder groups (I've got a comp sci degree etc myself, so I'm an example), and policy wonks and lawyers working for technical community orgs. The way we organise division between stakeholder categories is artificial - and while it can be useful to ensure balance, it can create as many problems as it solves. We've discussed many times the problems of artificial divisions within ICANN leading to division, siloization, and pointless competition for resources between groups that might otherwise be allies. Avri brought up in that workshop the argument (that will be very familiar to you, Milton, but perhaps not to others) that more dynamic interest groups etc might often be far more useful and appropriate than the fairly simple and rigid notions of stakeholder groups that we have now. It is worth bearing in mind as we proceed with this process that the stakeholder group categories etc are very artificial and there are many different options to approaching it, that multi-stakeholderism is a very broad, vague description that doesn't tell you much without a lot more detail. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 25 21:12:22 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:12:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Strategic thinking in regard to the 2014 summit (was Re: Ad hoc...) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20131026031222.1c4de2e5@swan.bollow.ch> Milton L Mueller wrote: > I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. +1 Fear is not a good advisor. We need to think calmly about the motivations of the various actors, about what that means for what the real opportunities are in regard to the summit that has been announced for 2014 (and the more long term processes into which this summit will feed, whatever they may be), and then make our proposals in regard to the agenda of the summit, and in regard to other significant concerns related to it. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 25 21:40:04 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:40:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2D8C3778-16FC-447E-8D8B-2457FC319B68@ciroap.org> On 26/10/2013, at 8:00 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Good to see you resurface, MM :-) Oh "Lawd"! What trouble have I got myself into??? > A reminder on context... I'm not in Bali. We received a note from one of us leading the CS organizing in Bali that the dynamic in the i orgs was essentially a power grabbing one, tech vs. govt-centric (was not clear where the non-tech CS fits in all that.) Then we see another person response asking (as I understood it then, but this has been corrected since) whether CS shouldn't feel okay with that. So what I was reacting to, basically, is the over simplification you're denouncing which precisely, IMHO, leads to believe that "govts are so evil that just kicking them out of the tent (and replacing them by tech or whoever, for that matter) would resolve our problems." An interesting aside - some of us met yesterday with a government representative, and mentioned that there is some division within civil society on whether multi-stakeholder Internet governance models must be equal on all sides, or whether a process can be called multi-stakeholder notwithstanding that governments may take a dominant role (for now) by reason of their clearer accountability and (albeit imperfect) representativeness. He was actually quite surprised that there was any such division, saying that all the civil society stakeholders whom he consults with are of the former persuasion. He seemed to view this position as inflexible and as an obstacle to achieving progress in multi-stakeholder governance arrangements. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 25 21:47:47 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:47:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder group distinctions (was Re: Ad hoc...) In-Reply-To: <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <20131026034747.1ea56efa@swan.bollow.ch> David Cake wrote: > The 'Technical Community Role in Global Internet Governance' > workshop on Thursday made it fairly clear that the division between > technical community and civil society (or other stakeholder groups) > is a fairly artificial one, with many of us filling a variety of > different roles at different times What does this imply for processes such as the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation where the selection of participants is based on this kind of stakeholder categories? If I've been hearing right what Constance Bommelaer, who was the tech community “focal point” for that selection process, has been telling me (I'm Cc'ing Constance in the hope that she'll correct me if I'm in any way misrepresenting this), the tech community's selection process has been based on the goal of selecting people who are somehow specifically representative of the particular kind of perspective that is characteristic of that community of techies and academics. Furthermore, they're working on a paper that will explain this and the underlying principles in significant clarity. I think that it will be very valuable for us in civil society to follow that example and undertake a similar clarification exercise in regard to our own identity as a community, etc. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Oct 25 21:55:00 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:55:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance Message-ID: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/stakeholders-wrangle-over-the-brazil-summit-on-internet-governance -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Oct 25 22:42:49 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:42:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] Message-ID: Hi, As long as an individual veto can block any output from IGC there is no way to produce meaningful declarations on a sensitive issue. At the moment the totalitarian strategy of the US gov makes all internet issues bipolar, either siding with the US gov or not, while hiding behind rhetorical fig leaves. Another charter is needed, with perhaps 2/3 majority or more, but not unanimity. Can this be achieved through the present charter, or should IGC be formally dissolved and recreated ? Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 25 22:44:01 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:44:01 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> <00746280-8942-4DBE-B0BE-C440BAB933E9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332130@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Well done! Thx. I sign it. Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Fouad Bajwa Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 00:10 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: IGC Betreff: Re: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil You may include my endorsement. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 22:56:45 2013 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:56:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert: Kindly add my name to the sign- on of this statement. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Friday, October 25, 2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 23:04:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:04:06 +0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005901ced1f8$144369e0$3cca3da0$@gmail.com> Worth reading the whole article. Lot's of relevance to IG. M From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:38 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-battle-for-power-on-the-internet/280824/ The Atlantic The Battle for Power on the Internet Bruce Schneier Oct 24 2013, 7:07 AM ET We’re in the middle of an epic battle for power in cyberspace. On one side are the traditional, organized, institutional powers such as governments and large multinational corporations. On the other are the distributed and nimble: grassroots movements, dissident groups, hackers, and criminals. Initially, the Internet empowered the second side. It gave them a place to coordinate and communicate efficiently, and made them seem unbeatable. But now, the more traditional institutional powers are winning, and winning big. How these two side fare in the long term, and the fate of the rest of us who don’t fall into either group, is an open question—and one vitally important to the future of the Internet. In the Internet’s early days, there was a lot of talk about its “natural laws”—how it would upend traditional power blocks, empower the masses, and spread freedom throughout the world. The international nature of the Internet bypassed circumvented national laws. Anonymity was easy. Censorship was impossible. Police were clueless about cybercrime. And bigger changes seemed inevitable. Digital cash would undermine national sovereignty. Citizen journalism would topple traditional media, corporate PR, and political parties. Easy digital copying would destroy the traditional movie and music industries. Web marketing would allow even the smallest companies to compete against corporate giants. It really would be a new world order. This was a utopian vision, but some of it did come to pass. Internet marketing has transformed commerce. The entertainment industries have been transformed by things like MySpace and YouTube, and are now more open to outsiders. Mass media has changed dramatically, and some of the most influential people in the media have come from the blogging world. There are new ways to organize politically and run elections. Crowdfunding has made tens of thousands of projects possible to finance, and crowdsourcing made more types of projects possible. Facebook and Twitter really did help topple governments. But that is just one side of the Internet’s disruptive character. The Internet has emboldened traditional power as well. On the corporate side, power is consolidating, a result of two current trends in computing. First, the rise of cloud computing means that we no longer have control of our data. Our e-mail, photos, calendars, address books, messages, and documents are on servers belonging to Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and so on. And second, we are increasingly accessing our data using devices that we have much less control over: iPhones, iPads, Android phones, Kindles, ChromeBooks, and so on. Unlike traditional operating systems, those devices are controlled much more tightly by the vendors, who limit what software can run, what they can do, how they’re updated, and so on. Even Windows 8 and Apple’s Mountain Lion operating system are heading in the direction of more vendor control. I have previously characterized this model of computing as “feudal.” Users pledge their allegiance to more powerful companies who, in turn, promise to protect them from both sysadmin duties and security threats. It’s a metaphor that’s rich in history and in fiction, and a model that’s increasingly permeating computing today. ... Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 25 23:20:50 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:20:50 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> <1382691958.60786.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332135@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> You can include also Medienstadt Leipzig e.V. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Antonio Medina Gómez Gesendet: Fr 25.10.2013 11:09 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil Please include Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet Antonio Medina Gómez 2013/10/25 Imran Ahmed Shah > Dear Norbert > Please include my name as an individuals endorsement. > > Thanks > > Imran Ahmed Shah > IGF Pakistan > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Norbert Bollow > *To:* IGC > *Sent:* Friday, 25 October 2013, 6:44 > *Subject:* [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet > Governance Summit in Brazil > > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 25 23:22:36 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:22:36 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Stakeholder group distinctions (was Re: Ad hoc...) References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <20131026034747.1ea56efa@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332136@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Being located in different baskets does not mean that you have not a lot of things in common. As I said in a previous mail, CS has to start from its basic values and interests. From this point we have to identify the spaces for close cooperation with other stakeholders, including PS and TC. In this process we will discover also the differences (as recently in the Bali discussion around the proposed Brazil meeting)which does not exclude a close collaboration where we can work together. Building bridges is better than building walls. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 03:47 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Constance Bommelaer Betreff: [governance] Stakeholder group distinctions (was Re: Ad hoc...) David Cake wrote: > The 'Technical Community Role in Global Internet Governance' > workshop on Thursday made it fairly clear that the division between > technical community and civil society (or other stakeholder groups) > is a fairly artificial one, with many of us filling a variety of > different roles at different times What does this imply for processes such as the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation where the selection of participants is based on this kind of stakeholder categories? If I've been hearing right what Constance Bommelaer, who was the tech community "focal point" for that selection process, has been telling me (I'm Cc'ing Constance in the hope that she'll correct me if I'm in any way misrepresenting this), the tech community's selection process has been based on the goal of selecting people who are somehow specifically representative of the particular kind of perspective that is characteristic of that community of techies and academics. Furthermore, they're working on a paper that will explain this and the underlying principles in significant clarity. I think that it will be very valuable for us in civil society to follow that example and undertake a similar clarification exercise in regard to our own identity as a community, etc. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Oct 25 23:41:31 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:41:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131026054131.772dd05a@swan.bollow.ch> Daniel Pimienta wrote: > >Multi-stakholderism is nothing if stakeholders: > >- cannot speak (language) > >- think (culture) > >- work (technologies) > > Maybe it's time indeed, JFC, in this motivating > context of some sort of revolution (in the > peaceful and paradigmatic sense of the term ;-)), > to put some useful seeds in our public statements > and declarations for the support to diversity > (linguistic, cultural, etc.) from civil > society in the model of Internet Governance we aim to. > > If we dont pay attention and leave "the implicit" > takes the decision for us then global > multistakeholderism is conducted de facto in English, > and only that way. As a consequence, we will > propose a scheme that, compared to the norm of International > organizations (that so many fear to take as an option and > consider an obsolete model) will be a clear regression. Yes, this is an important point. While we cannot reasonably re-open the statement at http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html after so many have endorsed it already, we should keep this in mind for future statements. Also this point could be explicitly mentioned in the text of the IGC decision endorsing the statement, for example as follows: The IGC endorses the Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil at http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html and notes in addition that the needed Internet governance architecture as per the first bullet point must allow for full and equal participation in the policy development processes in a variety of languages including the six UN languages. This is an informal draft text which can be freely edited at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/sign-on-endorse-plus Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 26 00:11:08 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:11:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC decision-making (was Re: Draft Civil Society Brief...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131026061108.36920e8f@swan.bollow.ch> Louis Pouzin wrote: > As long as an individual veto can block any output from IGC there is > no way to produce meaningful declarations on a sensitive issue. Actually this situation applies only to decisions that would need to be taken under strong time pressure. Otherwise the IGC Charter allows to proceed to use a rough consensus process after the consensus process has failed. (The rough consensus process in the IGC Charter has a 48 hours rule which prevents it from being used in the context of very tight deadlines.) > At > the moment the totalitarian strategy of the US gov makes all internet > issues bipolar, either siding with the US gov or not, while hiding > behind rhetorical fig leaves. > > Another charter is needed, with perhaps 2/3 majority or more, but not > unanimity. Can this be achieved through the present charter, The present charter allows for changes to the charter to be adopted by means of the following process: Amendments to the Charter This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. > or should IGC be formally dissolved and recreated ? There is no explicitly-defined process for formally dissolving IGC, but if there was a strong enough desire to formally dissolve IGC, the Charter could be amended to add procedures for such a step, which could then be executed. In my view, such a step should not be taken unless a clearly better structure has been created first and it has proved its worth. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 26 00:11:44 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:11:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] Message-ID: ---------------------------- Original Mes > On 25/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Jeremy >> >> Is this the same statement that was presented at an informal CS meeting >> yesterday afternoon.... And where a few changes were suggested - i >> rememeber at least by me Anja and me.. > > > Yes it is the same, with those suggestions incorporated, and reviewed. Thanks for the information, Jeremy... Who reviewed and incorporated the suggestions, and 'finalised' the statement. My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the willing' by the technical community. There is a need therefore to clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov front' to be included but *specifically about civil society in an independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*.... I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why is it not in the final formulation... Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. Thanks. parminder A > cut-off point for endorsements has not been set. Those who wish to > endorse should email Norbert Bollow who has taken this > initiative (thanks Norbert). Sorry for the delay in replying, I am at the > airport about to board. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended > to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 26 00:20:17 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:20:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] Message-ID: <0339a70c3116d219340bbc95da9f3f51.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> IT for Change supports the statement and will like to sign on it... But under protest, regarding the process that was followed in arriving at it. In fact I am simply not sure who - as in which group - is leading this process - Jeremy, can we be clear on this... The process at will took in whichever views some unclear protagonists of the statement agreed to take in. Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. parminder parminder ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] From: parminder at itforchange.net Date: Fri, October 25, 2013 9:11 pm To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Original Mes > On 25/10/2013, at 12:31 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Jeremy >> >> Is this the same statement that was presented at an informal CS meeting >> yesterday afternoon.... And where a few changes were suggested - i >> rememeber at least by me Anja and me.. > > > Yes it is the same, with those suggestions incorporated, and reviewed. Thanks for the information, Jeremy... Who reviewed and incorporated the suggestions, and 'finalised' the statement. My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the willing' by the technical community. There is a need therefore to clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov front' to be included but *specifically about civil society in an independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*.... I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why is it not in the final formulation... Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. Thanks. parminder A > cut-off point for endorsements has not been set. Those who wish to > endorse should email Norbert Bollow who has taken this > initiative (thanks Norbert). Sorry for the delay in replying, I am at the > airport about to board. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended > to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Oct 26 00:26:46 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 04:26:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch>,<52689F0F.7010003@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A90@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ,<0E160B65-A305-4622-82C2-89A0E2A2981B@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538388@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<78F951A0-5B7E-45E0-B803-3B3522A0EA58@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2A2317@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If I may wade back into the debate, for those keeping score at home: - as soon as the initiative was announced, some of us (cough, myself, and Milton) said now was the time for cs to set the agenda - others said wait for someone else to tell us what the agenda is (??) - then the i orgs made clear what they thought the agenda would be - others were 'shocked' Really? - The prospect of real power/rapid change seems to have unnerved some....hard to tell this far from the Bali front. But so what. The clock is ticking, the agenda will be set basically in stone by the end the year. Well not the end of the year, say December 15. Whether by the coalition of the willing, or others. Meaning we (cs, global + Brazil), i orgs, Brazilian and other governments and oh yeah the telco elephants definitely in the room have just 7 weeks to come up with something sensible. So far from the cheap seats it seems unlikely the panic of 2014 (Who's afraid of a Plenipot? Does sound like a scary thing...) will accomplish anything substantive. (quick! we need a photo op to ward of the wicked plenipot) Odds on the Summit taking credit for the easy wins of patching ICANN + IANA contract, per what we are hearing: zero Odds on the Summit kicking a 'everything else' ICANN-like orphan issues home of some coherence into existence: zero (Unless someone has a strawman not-ICANN plan somewhere...Parminder and I might agree that we could do worse than starting with blowing up OECD's ICCP and related processes to a global model in some mind meld with ICANN as a the sugar daddy/cash machine to fund and to offer prototypical msh processes for the borrowing...but has anyone advocated that or anything in particular else? Nope, didn't think so.) And besides, since when were all 'orphan IG issues' ITU plenipot matters? Someone needs to spend more time with Bill Drake and/or Anthony Rutkowski telling Plenipot war stories of the last several decades, to realize what is really likely to happen there. Or not. Anyway, I am afraid that right now this does indeed smell like a classic 'Summit' in the making, where the main outcome is indeed the group hug/photo op. And a press release. If that's all this is going to be then here's my 2 cents: forget about the event and the photo op, and focus on the 1-2 page press release. Because that's odds on the only significant thing coming out of this. Meaning, to end on a positive note, if we as igc can boil down to say 5 bullet points what we want from the summit, then we should say it. Rather than wasting time saying please may I (participate, attend, whatever), let's just get to the (5) points. Ok, could be 7, but remember if we are now dealing in sound bites and photo ops, then: deal with it, and be very succinct. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:04 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime On 26/10/2013, at 5:33 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:43 PM, David Cake > wrote: Everything that Fadi etc have been saying says that their primary motivation is to avoid a multi-lateral government led body for Internet governance, that the ITU plenipot etc are forcing their timing (in their opinion), and that they are in a hurry to create a multi-stakeholder process that can stand as a clear alternative. And it is clear that they have no idea what exact form that will take, are very keen to have buy in from CS or any other group that will lend the effort credibility and participate constructively, and they are to a large extent rushing things largely due to circumstances/opportunity, improvising as they go, and basically dancing as fast as they can (and boy can Fadi dance). It is not possible to be a more adamant opponent of inter-governmental control of the internet than me. However, I feel very suspicious of the way the ITU bogeyman is used to rally uncritical support for hasty and often ill-considered responses. There was a Plenipot in 2010. The Internet survived. There was WCIT in 2012. There was no serious attempt to take over the Internet, and the final treaty that provoked so much rejection was really not that bad. Now we are told we have to get all scared again and use the Rio meeting to talk NOT about fixing ICANN and the actual Internet governance institutions, but to deal with an extremely broad agenda merely in order to pre-empt the ITU. Fadi claimed to have spoken to several government leaders (of nations like South Korea) who had become more inclined to multi-lateralism since WCIT, with the additional impetus of post-Snowden anti-USG feeling. The Montevideo statement and outreach to Brazil etc seems to have been prompted by a strong feeling among the I* that the current political climate is worse than in 2010, or even in 2012. I can't say whether their impressions are correct, but it does seem likely that they would strongly reject the line of argument you are putting here. I don't think we have been told we can't use the Brazil meeting to fix ICANN and other institutions. The incorporation of a change in the IANA contract at least opens up some aspects of ICANN oversight for renegotiation, I would have thought. And good. And yet, Brazil is basically defecting from the pro-government coalition, the WCIT results have made it clear that there is nothing close to an international consensus on inserting the ITU into IG. Can we be a bit more sober and realistic about what is happening? Well, sure - but Fadi has more contact with government leaders than I do, so if he says things are substantially worse since WCIT, I have no reason to doubt him either. More to the point, why don't WE try to set the agenda, instead of letting those who run the I* institutions do so? Why are you always reacting to their initiatives instead of taking your own? We could have, but we didn't. And then the I* orgs panicked a little. I think Fadi etc were hoping something would emerge spontaneously post-WCIT, but when it didn't and they perceived it as becoming urgent they started the process themselves. This isn't an ICANN centric process. Yes, a renewed discussion about IANA and ICANN accountability can, and should, form part of that discussion. I can assure others in civil society that those of us involved with ICANN (including Milton and myself) are very keen to lead critical discussions about ICANN accountability. I find it very odd over the last few days to be cast into the role of defender of ICANN against paranoia and misinformation - there are quite enough valid reasons to criticise ICANN (and the near allergic reaction to the idea of real accountability from parts of its leadership are among them) without making up conspiracies or misrepresenting its processes. I don't see any paranoia or misinformation about ICANN in my messages. I just see a long-term understanding of how we need to reform ICANN, a healthy skepticism about CS being used (again), and a determination to take advantage of Brazil's and Fadi's wonderful initiative. I do appreciate some of the things Fadi has done. I just don't think we need to be driven by fear. Well, you did sort of imply a little I* conspiracy theory, but I'll cede the point - my comments weren't aimed at you specifically, as of course you do have strong understanding of ICANNs processes, though you do still seem to see this through a somewhat ICANN-centric point of view, which I still think is likely to not be so useful a perspective ongoing. While an opportunity to discuss the IANA contract, oversight of ICANN, etc is welcome, that really doesn't seem to be the main focus of any of what the Brazil meeting is about, and ICANNs seemingly central role might have more to do with Fadi personally choosing to push the process along. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Oct 26 00:45:45 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:45:45 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Stakeholder group distinctions (was Re: Ad hoc...) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332136@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <20131026034747.1ea56efa@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332136@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: I am in absolute agreement with Wolfgang. For far too long, we have to move from working in silos to enhanced collaboration and cooperation. This does not mean compromising on principles but it means that we can find common ground and advocate interests that we represent or purport to represent. We definitely need to build bridges than walls. Advocacy is more than just having a position on matters, it means understanding the complex variables, and being able to effectively navigate through. It is a place we where we seek to be heard but at the same time hear what other voices are saying and where they are coming from and seeing the bigger picture together. We should remember to celebrate our strengths and not our weaknesses. Certainly, there is always something to improve, make better and that is how societies develop but we have to remember that as we do that, that we don't trample on the plants that are just beginning to grow because one day they will provide the much needed shade that we need. Warm Regards from Hong Kong, Sala Sala Sent from my iPad > On Oct 26, 2013, at 11:22 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Being located in different baskets does not mean that you have not a lot of things in common. As I said in a previous mail, CS has to start from its basic values and interests. From this point we have to identify the spaces for close cooperation with other stakeholders, including PS and TC. In this process we will discover also the differences (as recently in the Bali discussion around the proposed Brazil meeting)which does not exclude a close collaboration where we can work together. Building bridges is better than building walls. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow > Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 03:47 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: Constance Bommelaer > Betreff: [governance] Stakeholder group distinctions (was Re: Ad hoc...) > > David Cake wrote: > >> The 'Technical Community Role in Global Internet Governance' >> workshop on Thursday made it fairly clear that the division between >> technical community and civil society (or other stakeholder groups) >> is a fairly artificial one, with many of us filling a variety of >> different roles at different times > > What does this imply for processes such as the CSTD WG on Enhanced > Cooperation where the selection of participants is based on this kind > of stakeholder categories? > > If I've been hearing right what Constance Bommelaer, who was the tech > community "focal point" for that selection process, has been telling > me (I'm Cc'ing Constance in the hope that she'll correct me if I'm in > any way misrepresenting this), the tech community's selection process > has been based on the goal of selecting people who are somehow > specifically representative of the particular kind of perspective that > is characteristic of that community of techies and academics. > > Furthermore, they're working on a paper that will explain this and > the underlying principles in significant clarity. > > I think that it will be very valuable for us in civil society to follow > that example and undertake a similar clarification exercise in regard > to our own identity as a community, etc. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Oct 26 01:13:27 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:13:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4110BE9A-EFF2-4D14-BF6A-19B29DF51437@uzh.ch> I doubt Fadi or anyone else is tracking and recalibrating to the twists and turns of discussion on the gov list. If he does a meeting with someone and they say they don't like 'coalition' he may say fine let's call it a platform, whatever. He just wants to move forward with people on board. If at some future point he refers again to a coalition, it won't be a matter of some change of position to which dark intent should be ascribed, but rather that he's forgotten this mattered to someone. And having been in the meetings and had multiple chats offline, I don't recall any statement that everyone must subscribe to a certain MS-ist ideology, or a subsequent decision to withdraw this 'requirement'. The construct that there are opposing groups with fixed and antagonistic positions and this is all a matter of bargaining and concessions was not a shared reality and starting point, so he was a little puzzled. But he's getting clued in. Bill On Oct 25, 2013, at 11:30 AM, parminder wrote: > However, it must be said that immediate critical responses like Jeremy's email, and others supporting it, did make a significant difference. The term ' a new coalition' seems to have been withdrawn in the favour of a more neutral one - a new platform..... And the condition of having to swear by a certain MS-ist ideology is also withdrawn, and the only need is that one should be willing to engage with the emerging effort to address global IG in a meaningful way.. > > parminder > > On Friday 25 October 2013 08:09 AM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Mawaki >> >> Sorry not to see this earlier. Events have overtaken things in the meanwhile, we met with Fadi and it was useful, so there's not much point spending cycles deconstructing the misconnects at this point. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> >> On Oct 24, 2013, at 5:50 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim wrote: >>> Bill, >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> > Hi >>> > >>> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a framing >>> > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one group >>> > wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they talked >>> > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully agreed >>> > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get >>> > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include people >>> > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable >>> > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there to >>> > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with the >>> > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own relationship >>> > to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do >>> > shouldn't be able to. >>> >>> Sums it up nicely. >>> >>> > >>> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, why do >>> > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? >>> >>> good question! >>> >>> Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain? >>> I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past the initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct "relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the most desirable and the latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't we do both, especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of CS and those of I* orgs are not fully aligned? >>> >>> And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil meeting" as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would ask. >>> >>> >>> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the >>> "technical community" should take over from governments. >>> >>> McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there are direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice them literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3 or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such state of affairs has implications that you did not need to state explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you agree with that (as implied by your question), then my response to you was warranted. Note that the said response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs than it is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are different. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and >>> regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in >>> addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes. I'm not >>> willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can >>> instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes. >>> >>> I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react. >>> Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions? >>> >>> -- >>> 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.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 26 01:54:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 07:54:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It > was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second > sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the > conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil > society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the > conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also > specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely > new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the > willing' by the technical community. There is a need therefore to > clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov > front' to be included but *specifically about civil society in an > independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*.... > > I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why > is it not in the final formulation... I agree with Parminder's point here, both in regard to its substance and in regard to the process aspect. In a valid consensus process, such change requests cannot be simply ignored: Change requests must be incorporated unless explicitly opposed, and when a change request is opposed, a valid justification for that opposition must be communicated. > Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their > official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so > eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host the sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators jointly. It was not a personal initiative on my part. This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely extraordinary situation. > Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement > on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become > available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the starting point for a consensus process) for such a potential statement that would be independent of the sign-on statement presently under consideration, which I agree is imperfect both in regard to that substantive point and also in regard to the process through which it came about. However, in spite of its imperfections, IMO this statement is much, much better than the alternative which would be silence from our side at this crucial moment. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 26 03:21:12 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:21:12 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Parminder & Norbert, I disagreed with "independence". I understand partly your argument. But in my eyes this looks too short and includes the risk of moving into an isolation. If you would have combined "independence" with "based on a strong mutual collaboration with other stakeholders" I could have agreed. But you didn´t. So the text as it stands is okay and should not be further challenged. wolfgng -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 07:54 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] Parminder wrote: > My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It > was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second > sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the > conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil > society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the > conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also > specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely > new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the > willing' by the technical community. There is a need therefore to > clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov > front' to be included but *specifically about civil society in an > independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*.... > > I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why > is it not in the final formulation... I agree with Parminder's point here, both in regard to its substance and in regard to the process aspect. In a valid consensus process, such change requests cannot be simply ignored: Change requests must be incorporated unless explicitly opposed, and when a change request is opposed, a valid justification for that opposition must be communicated. > Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their > official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so > eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host the sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators jointly. It was not a personal initiative on my part. This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely extraordinary situation. > Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement > on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become > available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the starting point for a consensus process) for such a potential statement that would be independent of the sign-on statement presently under consideration, which I agree is imperfect both in regard to that substantive point and also in regard to the process through which it came about. However, in spite of its imperfections, IMO this statement is much, much better than the alternative which would be silence from our side at this crucial moment. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Oct 26 03:23:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:23:05 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332130@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> <00746280-8942-4DBE-B0BE-C440BAB933E9@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332130@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <141f3a50bf0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Sign. Thanks. --srs (htc one x) On 25 October 2013 10:44:01 PM "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Well done! Thx. I sign it. > > Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Fouad Bajwa > Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 00:10 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > Cc: IGC > Betreff: Re: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet > Governance Summit in Brazil > > You may include my endorsement. > > Best Regards > Fouad Bajwa > > Sent from my mobile device > > On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 26 04:10:14 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:10:14 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <97836ac79d7154708f6219f802d8f9a8.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > Hi Parminder & Norbert, > > I disagreed with "independence". I understand partly your argument. But in > my eyes this looks too short and includes the risk of moving into an > isolation. If you would have combined "independence" with "based on a > strong mutual collaboration with other stakeholders" I could have agreed. > But you didn´t. So the text as it stands is okay and should not be further > challenged. Hi Wolfgang Do you not agree that we have to strongly represent that civil society is able to independently organise itself - especially in the background of the still standing offer of the I* community to help organise it .... That was the brunt of the recent proposal of the 'coalition' from ICANN plus.. What is wrong in claiming that we are independently able to organise and represent ourself? Will you please explain. Not to make this claim may be to agree that well we are fine with a non-gov stakeholders front that I* seems to be keen to be organising. I dont think empty platitudes and principles means much in crunch times like this - either we strongly tell Brazilians that we would like to organise ourselves independently, or we slip into a situation where I* does the non gov organising.. Take your choice... parminder > > wolfgng > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow > Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 07:54 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding > the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] > > Parminder wrote: > >> My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It >> was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second >> sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the >> conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil >> society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the >> conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also >> specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely >> new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the >> willing' by the technical community. There is a need therefore to >> clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov >> front' to be included but *specifically about civil society in an >> independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*.... >> >> I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why >> is it not in the final formulation... > > I agree with Parminder's point here, both in regard to its substance > and in regard to the process aspect. In a valid consensus process, such > change requests cannot be simply ignored: Change requests must be > incorporated unless explicitly opposed, and when a change request is > opposed, a valid justification for that opposition must be > communicated. > >> Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their >> official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so >> eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. > > Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host the > sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators jointly. > It was not a personal initiative on my part. > > This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely extraordinary > situation. > >> Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement >> on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become >> available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. > > So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the starting > point for a consensus process) for such a potential statement that > would be independent of the sign-on statement presently under > consideration, which I agree is imperfect both in regard to that > substantive point and also in regard to the process through which it > came about. However, in spite of its imperfections, IMO this statement > is much, much better than the alternative which would be silence from > our side at this crucial moment. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 26 04:15:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:15:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <4110BE9A-EFF2-4D14-BF6A-19B29DF51437@uzh.ch> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> <4110BE9A-EFF2-4D14-BF6A-19B29DF51437@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <866bfade6b0100984d85126bac6b6747.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > I doubt Fadi or anyone else is tracking and recalibrating to the twists > and turns of discussion on the gov list. We can gladly increasingly get dismissive about ourselves as IG civil society in general, and IGC, in particular, and that would only make us more and more irrelevant! If he does a meeting with > someone and they say they don't like 'coalition' he may say fine let's > call it a platform, whatever. He just wants to move forward with people > on board. If at some future point he refers again to a coalition, it won't > be a matter of some change of position to which dark intent should be > ascribed, but rather that he's forgotten this mattered to someone. And > having been in the meetings and had multiple chats offline, I don't recall > any statement that everyone must subscribe to a certain MS-ist ideology, > or a subsequent decision to withdraw this 'requirement'. In the meeting on Wednesday, Chris Disppain clear said that it will be a coalition of those who believe..... And as clearly, the next day, Fadi, which changing the nomenclature from coalition to platform also clearly said there was no other commitment to be made to be a part of the platform that a willingness to engage. So many of us were there at both the meetings, and if others did not get the same impression they can chip in... parminder > > The construct that there are opposing groups with fixed and antagonistic > positions and this is all a matter of bargaining and concessions was not a > shared reality and starting point, so he was a little puzzled. But he's > getting clued in. > > Bill > > > > On Oct 25, 2013, at 11:30 AM, parminder wrote: > >> However, it must be said that immediate critical responses like Jeremy's >> email, and others supporting it, did make a significant difference. The >> term ' a new coalition' seems to have been withdrawn in the favour of a >> more neutral one - a new platform..... And the condition of having to >> swear by a certain MS-ist ideology is also withdrawn, and the only need >> is that one should be willing to engage with the emerging effort to >> address global IG in a meaningful way.. >> >> parminder >> >> On Friday 25 October 2013 08:09 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Mawaki >>> >>> Sorry not to see this earlier. Events have overtaken things in the >>> meanwhile, we met with Fadi and it was useful, so there's not much >>> point spending cycles deconstructing the misconnects at this point. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Oct 24, 2013, at 5:50 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake >>>> wrote: >>>> > Hi >>>> > >>>> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a >>>> framing >>>> > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one >>>> group >>>> > wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they >>>> talked >>>> > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully >>>> agreed >>>> > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get >>>> > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include >>>> people >>>> > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the >>>> desirable >>>> > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were >>>> there to >>>> > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate >>>> with the >>>> > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own >>>> relationship >>>> > to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who >>>> do >>>> > shouldn't be able to. >>>> >>>> Sums it up nicely. >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get >>>> involved, why do >>>> > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? >>>> >>>> good question! >>>> >>>> Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting >>>> about this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain? >>>> I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS >>>> meeting "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we >>>> get past the initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should >>>> have joint meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even >>>> if they have different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your >>>> words. But frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* >>>> orgs) OR (direct "relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint >>>> that the former is the most desirable and the latter the least. Is my >>>> reading correct? Why can't we do both, especially if there remain >>>> issues on which the objectives of CS and those of I* orgs are not >>>> fully aligned? >>>> >>>> And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil >>>> meeting" as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with >>>> summits :-) but since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, >>>> I thought I would ask. >>>> >>>> >>>> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the >>>> "technical community" should take over from governments. >>>> >>>> McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. >>>> But what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote >>>> in the first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no >>>> way one can fully and accurately understand what you wrote in >>>> abstraction, without linking it to what you were responding to. And >>>> once one does that, there are direct implications to what you're >>>> saying even if you didn't voice them literally. That's also part of >>>> the complexity of conversations involving 3 or more pragmatic (in the >>>> linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't question Jeremy's take on >>>> the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and just asked him whether >>>> CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to start from the same >>>> place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my response to your >>>> question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such state of affairs >>>> has implications that you did not need to state explicitly. By asking >>>> us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are indicating that you agreed >>>> with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as described by Jeremy) >>>> is the state of affairs and if you agree with that (as implied by your >>>> question), then my response to you was warranted. Note that the said >>>> response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs than it >>>> is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are >>>> different. >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> >>>> I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and >>>> regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in >>>> addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes. I'm not >>>> willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can >>>> instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes. >>>> >>>> I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react. >>>> Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Oct 26 04:17:30 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:17:30 +0500 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Ah, the IG Spring finally in evolution.... Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 26, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/stakeholders-wrangle-over-the-brazil-summit-on-internet-governance > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 26 04:39:54 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:39:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1fec4dc2d610fc0f7043fb5afb98acce.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > >> (Parminder) Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their >> official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so >> eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. > > Norbert) Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host the > sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators jointly. > It was not a personal initiative on my part. If it were a technical hosting, there is no issue. I think BestBits list for a long time ran on IGC server (and due to some emergency is still running there)... However, here it seems that IGC coordinators are facilitating a sign-on process, about which I have the following questions for the cocos 1. When was it decided that IGC could have a sign on process... And how was it decided. I dont see a provision in the charter, for instance. So are we, as IGC, from now on also going to do sign on processes? Would just want to know. 2. Who approached IGC cocos to help facilitate the sign on process. I means on whose behalf is this process being conducted. (I already asked this question earlier.) > > This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely extraordinary > situation. > >> Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement >> on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become >> available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. > > So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the starting > point for a consensus process) for such a potential statement that > would be independent of the sign-on statement presently under > consideration, Since the earleir IGC process, a few weeks back, was interrupted for more info and f2f meetings, why cant we just post the present statement, which is almost agreeable to most, for some few changes that may come, and then see consensus or rough consensus. As for the 'extra-ordinary' situation, I had asked if there was a deadline for sign ons and I am told there is none, which only means that the issue/ delivery of statement to the addressed parties isnt imminent, at least not immediately, as in tomorrow or so. I think we should follow proper IGC processes. parminder which I agree is imperfect both in regard to that > substantive point and also in regard to the process through which it > came about. However, in spite of its imperfections, IMO this statement > is much, much better than the alternative which would be silence from > our side at this crucial moment. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 26 05:00:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 02:00:06 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: <97836ac79d7154708f6219f802d8f9a8.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <97836ac79d7154708f6219f802d8f9a8.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2aaa7b829608c8817af6aa3f9d5a6c9d.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> In fact our letter should stress that we are putting together 4 initial liasons - from the Brazilian CS - to work to channel CS participation at all levels of the process... (And also name the four persons we agreed to). This is the meaning of independently organising ourselves. It is that kind of specifics that matter most at this stage - when the game has moved far further on from where we were when we first proposed a statement. >> Hi Parminder & Norbert, >> >> I disagreed with "independence". I understand partly your argument. But >> in >> my eyes this looks too short and includes the risk of moving into an >> isolation. If you would have combined "independence" with "based on a >> strong mutual collaboration with other stakeholders" I could have >> agreed. >> But you didn´t. So the text as it stands is okay and should not be >> further >> challenged. > > Hi Wolfgang > > Do you not agree that we have to strongly represent that civil society is > able to independently organise itself - especially in the background of > the still standing offer of the I* community to help organise it .... That > was the brunt of the recent proposal of the 'coalition' from ICANN plus.. > > What is wrong in claiming that we are independently able to organise and > represent ourself? > > Will you please explain. Not to make this claim may be to agree that well > we are fine with a non-gov stakeholders front that I* seems to be keen to > be organising. > > I dont think empty platitudes and principles means much in crunch times > like this - either we strongly tell Brazilians that we would like to > organise ourselves independently, or we slip into a situation where I* > does the non gov organising.. > > Take your choice... > > parminder > > >> >> wolfgng >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow >> Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 07:54 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement >> regarding >> the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] >> >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It >>> was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second >>> sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the >>> conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil >>> society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the >>> conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also >>> specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely >>> new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the >>> willing' by the technical community. There is a need therefore to >>> clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov >>> front' to be included but *specifically about civil society in an >>> independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*.... >>> >>> I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why >>> is it not in the final formulation... >> >> I agree with Parminder's point here, both in regard to its substance >> and in regard to the process aspect. In a valid consensus process, such >> change requests cannot be simply ignored: Change requests must be >> incorporated unless explicitly opposed, and when a change request is >> opposed, a valid justification for that opposition must be >> communicated. >> >>> Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their >>> official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so >>> eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. >> >> Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host the >> sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators jointly. >> It was not a personal initiative on my part. >> >> This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely extraordinary >> situation. >> >>> Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement >>> on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become >>> available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. >> >> So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the starting >> point for a consensus process) for such a potential statement that >> would be independent of the sign-on statement presently under >> consideration, which I agree is imperfect both in regard to that >> substantive point and also in regard to the process through which it >> came about. However, in spite of its imperfections, IMO this statement >> is much, much better than the alternative which would be silence from >> our side at this crucial moment. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 26 05:07:01 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:07:01 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <97836ac79d7154708f6219f802d8f9a8.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332138@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> As I said in the meeting and in my mail mail: We have to do both. We have to bring our own house in order and develop strong, clear and constructive positions (independently) but we have also to signal clear that we want to cooperate with all the other stakeholders. You gave only one side of the coin, but the coin has two sides. I recommend to read Salas reply from Hongkong. w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: parminder at itforchange.net [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 10:10 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Norbert Bollow Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] > Hi Parminder & Norbert, > > I disagreed with "independence". I understand partly your argument. But in > my eyes this looks too short and includes the risk of moving into an > isolation. If you would have combined "independence" with "based on a > strong mutual collaboration with other stakeholders" I could have agreed. > But you didn´t. So the text as it stands is okay and should not be further > challenged. Hi Wolfgang Do you not agree that we have to strongly represent that civil society is able to independently organise itself - especially in the background of the still standing offer of the I* community to help organise it .... That was the brunt of the recent proposal of the 'coalition' from ICANN plus.. What is wrong in claiming that we are independently able to organise and represent ourself? Will you please explain. Not to make this claim may be to agree that well we are fine with a non-gov stakeholders front that I* seems to be keen to be organising. I dont think empty platitudes and principles means much in crunch times like this - either we strongly tell Brazilians that we would like to organise ourselves independently, or we slip into a situation where I* does the non gov organising.. Take your choice... parminder > > wolfgng > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow > Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 07:54 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding > the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] > > Parminder wrote: > >> My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It >> was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second >> sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the >> conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil >> society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the >> conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also >> specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely >> new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the >> willing' by the technical community. There is a need therefore to >> clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov >> front' to be included but *specifically about civil society in an >> independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*.... >> >> I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why >> is it not in the final formulation... > > I agree with Parminder's point here, both in regard to its substance > and in regard to the process aspect. In a valid consensus process, such > change requests cannot be simply ignored: Change requests must be > incorporated unless explicitly opposed, and when a change request is > opposed, a valid justification for that opposition must be > communicated. > >> Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their >> official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so >> eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. > > Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host the > sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators jointly. > It was not a personal initiative on my part. > > This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely extraordinary > situation. > >> Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement >> on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become >> available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. > > So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the starting > point for a consensus process) for such a potential statement that > would be independent of the sign-on statement presently under > consideration, which I agree is imperfect both in regard to that > substantive point and also in regard to the process through which it > came about. However, in spite of its imperfections, IMO this statement > is much, much better than the alternative which would be silence from > our side at this crucial moment. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 26 05:11:22 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:11:22 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Jeremy thanks, a great and very clear, eloquent and forward looking analysis. Very helpful. wolfgag -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Fouad Bajwa Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 10:17 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance Ah, the IG Spring finally in evolution.... Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Oct 26, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/stakeholders-wrangle-over-the-brazil-summit-on-internet-governance > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 26 06:12:13 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:12:13 -0700 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332138@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <97836ac79d7154708f6219f802d8f9a8.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332138@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <706fcc33d6598e3c3ab3d8d94879bb34.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> > As I said in the meeting and in my mail mail: We have to do both. We have > to bring our own house in order and develop strong, clear and constructive > positions (independently) Yes, we need to mention that we will organise independently, which is not there... but we have also to signal clear that we want to > cooperate with all the other stakeholders. Cant see how we can progress with cooperating with all stakeholders - which must be carefully demarcated from beong co-opted - whether by governments, or business, or the technical community.... You gave only one side of the > coin, but the coin has two sides. The statement is not at all clear about independent organising and representation - and putting forward a specific interim mechanism. That is the need of the hour... So, it is the current statement that is giving only one side of the coin. parminder I recommend to read Salas reply from > Hongkong. > > w > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: parminder at itforchange.net [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 10:10 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Cc: Norbert Bollow > Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement > regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] > >> Hi Parminder & Norbert, >> >> I disagreed with "independence". I understand partly your argument. But >> in >> my eyes this looks too short and includes the risk of moving into an >> isolation. If you would have combined "independence" with "based on a >> strong mutual collaboration with other stakeholders" I could have >> agreed. >> But you didn´t. So the text as it stands is okay and should not be >> further >> challenged. > > Hi Wolfgang > > Do you not agree that we have to strongly represent that civil society is > able to independently organise itself - especially in the background of > the still standing offer of the I* community to help organise it .... That > was the brunt of the recent proposal of the 'coalition' from ICANN plus.. > > What is wrong in claiming that we are independently able to organise and > represent ourself? > > Will you please explain. Not to make this claim may be to agree that well > we are fine with a non-gov stakeholders front that I* seems to be keen to > be organising. > > I dont think empty platitudes and principles means much in crunch times > like this - either we strongly tell Brazilians that we would like to > organise ourselves independently, or we slip into a situation where I* > does the non gov organising.. > > Take your choice... > > parminder > > >> >> wolfgng >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow >> Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 07:54 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement >> regarding >> the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] >> >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It >>> was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second >>> sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the >>> conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil >>> society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the >>> conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also >>> specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely >>> new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the >>> willing' by the technical community. There is a need therefore to >>> clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov >>> front' to be included but *specifically about civil society in an >>> independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*.... >>> >>> I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why >>> is it not in the final formulation... >> >> I agree with Parminder's point here, both in regard to its substance >> and in regard to the process aspect. In a valid consensus process, such >> change requests cannot be simply ignored: Change requests must be >> incorporated unless explicitly opposed, and when a change request is >> opposed, a valid justification for that opposition must be >> communicated. >> >>> Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their >>> official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so >>> eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. >> >> Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host the >> sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators jointly. >> It was not a personal initiative on my part. >> >> This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely extraordinary >> situation. >> >>> Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement >>> on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become >>> available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. >> >> So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the starting >> point for a consensus process) for such a potential statement that >> would be independent of the sign-on statement presently under >> consideration, which I agree is imperfect both in regard to that >> substantive point and also in regard to the process through which it >> came about. However, in spite of its imperfections, IMO this statement >> is much, much better than the alternative which would be silence from >> our side at this crucial moment. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 26 06:14:58 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:14:58 -0700 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: <706fcc33d6598e3c3ab3d8d94879bb34.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <97836ac79d7154708f6219f802d8f9a8.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332138@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <706fcc33d6598e3c3ab3d8d94879bb34.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: >> As I said in the meeting and in my mail mail: We have to do both. We >> have >> to bring our own house in order and develop strong, clear and >> constructive >> positions (independently) > > Yes, we need to mention that we will organise independently, which is not > there... > > > but we have also to signal clear that we want to >> cooperate with all the other stakeholders. > > Cant see how we can progress with cooperating with all stakeholders - Of course I meant, progress without cooperation with all stakeholders.... > which must be carefully demarcated from beong co-opted - whether by > governments, or business, or the technical community.... > > > You gave only one side of the >> coin, but the coin has two sides. > > The statement is not at all clear about independent organising and > representation - and putting forward a specific interim mechanism. That is > the need of the hour... So, it is the current statement that is giving > only one side of the coin. > > > parminder > > I recommend to read Salas reply from >> Hongkong. >> >> w >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: parminder at itforchange.net [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 10:10 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> Cc: Norbert Bollow >> Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement >> regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] >> >>> Hi Parminder & Norbert, >>> >>> I disagreed with "independence". I understand partly your argument. But >>> in >>> my eyes this looks too short and includes the risk of moving into an >>> isolation. If you would have combined "independence" with "based on a >>> strong mutual collaboration with other stakeholders" I could have >>> agreed. >>> But you didn´t. So the text as it stands is okay and should not be >>> further >>> challenged. >> >> Hi Wolfgang >> >> Do you not agree that we have to strongly represent that civil society >> is >> able to independently organise itself - especially in the background of >> the still standing offer of the I* community to help organise it .... >> That >> was the brunt of the recent proposal of the 'coalition' from ICANN >> plus.. >> >> What is wrong in claiming that we are independently able to organise and >> represent ourself? >> >> Will you please explain. Not to make this claim may be to agree that >> well >> we are fine with a non-gov stakeholders front that I* seems to be keen >> to >> be organising. >> >> I dont think empty platitudes and principles means much in crunch times >> like this - either we strongly tell Brazilians that we would like to >> organise ourselves independently, or we slip into a situation where I* >> does the non gov organising.. >> >> Take your choice... >> >> parminder >> >> >>> >>> wolfgng >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert >>> Bollow >>> Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 07:54 >>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement >>> regarding >>> the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>> >>>> My only suggestion was not incorporated - neither responded to... It >>>> was regarding the main operative part of the sentence - the second >>>> sentence - which seek multistakeholder model of holding the >>>> conference. I had proposed that we instead ask specifically for civil >>>> society to be an equal partner in all processes of holding the >>>> conference..... The reasons for this have been variously argued, also >>>> specifically in the meeting on Thursday, that we are in an entirely >>>> new situation after the announcement of the new 'coalition of the >>>> willing' by the technical community. There is a need therefore to >>>> clearly show that what we are asking for is not that kind of 'non gov >>>> front' to be included but *specifically about civil society in an >>>> independent and self-represented role in holding the summit*.... >>>> >>>> I was never explained why this suggestion did not make sense, and why >>>> is it not in the final formulation... >>> >>> I agree with Parminder's point here, both in regard to its substance >>> and in regard to the process aspect. In a valid consensus process, such >>> change requests cannot be simply ignored: Change requests must be >>> incorporated unless explicitly opposed, and when a change request is >>> opposed, a valid justification for that opposition must be >>> communicated. >>> >>>> Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this process in their >>>> official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint email id), so >>>> eager to know what is their 'official' role in this present process.. >>> >>> Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host the >>> sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators jointly. >>> It was not a personal initiative on my part. >>> >>> This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely extraordinary >>> situation. >>> >>>> Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement >>>> on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become >>>> available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. >>> >>> So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the starting >>> point for a consensus process) for such a potential statement that >>> would be independent of the sign-on statement presently under >>> consideration, which I agree is imperfect both in regard to that >>> substantive point and also in regard to the process through which it >>> came about. However, in spite of its imperfections, IMO this statement >>> is much, much better than the alternative which would be silence from >>> our side at this crucial moment. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 26 06:41:50 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:41:50 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <97836ac79d7154708f6219f802d8f9a8.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332138@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <706fcc33d6598e3c3ab3d8d94879bb34.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133213A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> W: You gave only one side of the coin, but the coin has two sides. P: It is the current statement that is giving only one side of the coin. W: No, in my view the statement is balanced. I have no clue how "your coins" look like. We are NOT in a casino :-))) wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Oct 26 07:36:52 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:36:52 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: <2aaa7b829608c8817af6aa3f9d5a6c9d.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <97836ac79d7154708f6219f802d8f9a8.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> <2aaa7b829608c8817af6aa3f9d5a6c9d.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <35A6185B-3668-40B1-B880-A9F2D0AE1718@ciroap.org> On 26 Oct 2013, at 5:00 pm, parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > In fact our letter should stress that we are putting together 4 initial > liasons - from the Brazilian CS - to work to channel CS participation at > all levels of the process... (And also name the four persons we agreed > to). This is the meaning of independently organising ourselves. I don't quite agree with that. We don't know for how long these four will have that role. It's understood as an interim posting. I don't feel that it's important for a public statement to go into such detail. Especially since it was only a few of us who had any say in their nomination. (To be clear: I fully support them.) Also the statement was intentionally left narrow because for every new issue added, the number of disagreements with it escalates. So I think it was sensible to leave it as it stood. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Oct 26 07:42:31 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:42:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: <1fec4dc2d610fc0f7043fb5afb98acce.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> <1fec4dc2d610fc0f7043fb5afb98acce.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5F526F60-33C3-47F2-AA5E-B77CA6549940@ciroap.org> > On 26 Oct 2013, at 4:39 pm, parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > > 2. Who approached IGC cocos to help facilitate the sign on process. I > means on whose behalf is this process being conducted. (I already asked > this question earlier.) If you mean did I or another BB steering committee ask them, no we didn't. It was an independent initiative of the coordinators (though appreciated at least by me). -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Oct 26 08:04:04 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:04:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: <0339a70c3116d219340bbc95da9f3f51.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> References: <0339a70c3116d219340bbc95da9f3f51.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 26 Oct 2013, at 12:20 pm, parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > In fact I am simply not sure who - as in which group - is leading this > process - Jeremy, can we be clear on this... The feeling on the Best Bits steering committee at our face to face meeting was that we should post it despite the lack of unanimity, and let those who wanted to sign on do so, however we never got the chance because the server went down. That was when Norbert and Sala stepped in. Though not at our request. That isn't a really clear answer to your question, but it's the best I can do. > Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement on > the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become available > and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. Sure, why not? If consensus can be reached. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 26 13:05:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:05:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil] In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20131026075418.3f6df456@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332137@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20131026190539.4531df57@swan.bollow.ch> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > If you would have combined "independence" with > "based on a strong mutual collaboration with other stakeholders" I > could have agreed. That would have been a totally good solution from my perspective. > But you didn´t. I don't recall any consensus call of a kind that would lead to this kind of fine tuning to resolve outstanding differences. > So the text as it stands is okay and should not be further challenged. I agree that the text on http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html is what we have, and in fact I have been among the first to endorse it in my personal capacity. Also I'm not going to further challenge the specific steps in the stumbling forward process that has brought us to the point where we have this text. I do not want to weaken this statement. However, looking forward, I think that for future sign-on statements of international civil society, a well-defined drafting process (with an assurance of due process and accountability) will need to be used. Parminder wrote: >>> (Parminder) Also, I am seeing IGC coordinators marked in this >>> process in their official capacity - as in as the coordinators joint >>> email id), so eager to know what is their 'official' role in this >>> present process.. >> >> Norbert) Nothing more and nothing less than that the decision to host >> the sign-on letter on igcaucus.org was taken by both coordinators >> jointly. It was not a personal initiative on my part. > > If it were a technical hosting, there is no issue. I think BestBits > list for a long time ran on IGC server (and due to some emergency is > still running there)... > > However, here it seems that IGC coordinators are facilitating a > sign-on process, about which I have the following questions for the > cocos > > 1. When was it decided that IGC could have a sign on process... And > how was it decided. I dont see a provision in the charter, for > instance. So are we, as IGC, from now on also going to do sign on > processes? Would just want to know. Nothing was decided besides hosting that one particular sign-on letter. Seeing that in that particular situation there was a problem, Sala and I discussed the situation and decided to approach Jeremy with what from our perspective was a reasonable solution to the concrete problem. > 2. Who approached IGC cocos to help facilitate the sign on process. As Jeremy has already accurately explained, no-one approached us; it was our initiative to propose this solution. >> This decision was taken in view of the present absolutely >> extraordinary situation. >> >>> Also, why could IGC not go back to the process of consensus statement >>> on the Brazil meeting which was postponed till more details become >>> available and there is some f2f meetings in Bali. >> >> So far there is no concrete proposal (that could serve as the >> starting point for a consensus process) for such a potential >> statement that would be independent of the sign-on statement >> presently under consideration, > > Since the earleir IGC process, a few weeks back, was interrupted for > more info and f2f meetings, why cant we just post the present > statement, which is almost agreeable to most, for some few changes > that may come, and then see consensus or rough consensus. I tend to think that that letter would have made sense back then, but doesn't now. At least I don't see why it would still make sense now. > As for the 'extra-ordinary' situation, I had asked if there was a > deadline for sign ons and I am told there is none, which only means > that the issue/ delivery of statement to the addressed parties isnt > imminent, at least not immediately, as in tomorrow or so. In the first hours of the statement being online, I have personally given a very high priority to updating the list of endorsements almost in real time as endorsements came in. What IMO matters for this kind of statement is to quickly get to the point where it has enough endorsements to be credible. This is the kind of statement which is effective through people being able to refer to its URL. That statement takes effect through people reading it there and seeing the endorsements. It is not a letter that gets sent somewhere at a certain time after which signatures won't be used anymore. > I think we should follow proper IGC processes. In my view, the concept of sign-on statements is a reality that the IGC can only ignore at its peril. We should figure out, ideally in cooperation with other networks such as BestBits, what are the reasonable and timely and cooperative and credible and accountable processes for best making use of this tool for effectively communicating the views of international civil society. I don't think that it would make a lot of sense at the current stage to (try to) amend the charter to define a specific process that the IGC would then have to use in making use of this tool. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sat Oct 26 13:47:39 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 13:47:39 -0400 Subject: technical accuracy (was Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Cheha, etc.) In-Reply-To: References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0MV200FC4O373AG0@nk11p00mm-smtpin010.mac.com> <9096D3FD-330C-47C9-B7DA-45F3869D84AC@virtualized.org> <0MV5000MWF UC5TB0@n > <2AC06CE0-2064-4A4A-BA1D-2B7092BDE54F@virtualized.org> Message-ID: [cc and subject lines cleaned up] JFC, On Oct 25, 2013, at 9:34 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > In order to have a chance of success that "Technical Coalition" strategy has to be inclusive both technically and conceptually. Your responses show that it is not. My responses show that I take issue with technical inaccuracy, nothing more. Well, OK, that and I personally find it discourteous to folks who might not be fully comfortable in English to make up words and play silly word games. > For you the internet root is the unique reference point of the universe instead of being one of the 65,635 windows for the universe on the Internet DNS (RFC 1035). For me (and I believe most people), the Internet root is the unique reference point to the common namespace used in resolving names on the Internet via the DNS protocol suite. Also, I do not equate the Internet with the universe. > 2. I talked of the INTLFILE as the open repository of the roots of the human digital names and numbers. You doubted it because the authors of its IANA abstract did not acknowledge the names of those who selected the labels they used. Well, no. I expressed surprise that there was no reference by the authors of the DNS specifications to your and your colleagues work since it would comprise a core component of the DNS namespace and according to you it pre-dated the DNS specifications by nearly a decade. Next time I meet up with Paul Mockapetris, I'm planning on asking him about it -- I've always been a bit curious how the initial set of TLDs (other than .ARPA -- that one is obvious) were chosen. >> When someone asserts "This why they designed the DNS to support 35,635 roots." I feel a need to comment. > RFC 1035, ICANN ICP/3. I am reasonably familiar with both RFC 1035 (having written a couple of partial implementations of the DNS) and ICP-3. I guess I'm not bright enough to derive how either of those documents lead to a view that the DNS was designed to support 35,635 roots. > You certainly have to contribute in the way that is best for maintaining technical accuracy in a distributed globalized/wholized IANA system. Actually, I think I get to figure out how I get to try to contribute. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Oct 26 14:18:18 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:18:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <866bfade6b0100984d85126bac6b6747.squirrel@www.itforchange. net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> <4110BE9A-EFF2-4D14-BF6A-19B29DF51437@uzh.ch> <866bfade6b0100984d85126bac6b6747.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 10:15 26/10/2013, parminder at itforchange.net wrote: >In the meeting on Wednesday, Chris Disppain clear said that it will be a >coalition of those who believe..... And as clearly, the next day, Fadi, >which changing the nomenclature from coalition to platform also clearly >said there was no other commitment to be made to be a part of the platform >that a willingness to engage. You know the trick of the bad and of the good cop? I remember Chris Disspain promoting ideas of "new" TLD labels at the Paris ICANN meeting. He did enjoy it !!!. No one would have bet a penny on a failure either. 5 years ago already: today ICANN has produced its first vanity TLDs (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-23oct13-en.htm). No head line in the press of Beckstorm's revolution of the centurt..... "Those who believe" might be the knights of the old NOIE http://www.noie.gov.au/ - directed by Paul Twomey. When they thought that Australia and http://www.argopacific.com/ would rule the cyberspace. Some Dilma "communication mini-coup" in view of Oct 24? Never the less. The "summit" is known as something that could happen. It is up to us to make believe it will and it is important, and to take advantage from such a belief to construct and advance our own propositions (if we have some). http://bramsummit.org looks for a manager/promoter. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 26 14:41:03 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:41:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> <4110BE9A-EFF2-4D14-BF6A-19B29DF51437@uzh.ch> <866bfade6b0100984d85126bac6b6747.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 2:18 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 10:15 26/10/2013, parminder at itforchange.net wrote: >> No one would have bet a penny on a > failure either. 5 years ago already: today ICANN has produced its first > vanity TLDs > (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-23oct13-en.htm). How can you be pro-lingusitic diversity AND call them vanity TLDs: The four strings delegated are: شبكة (xn--ngbc5azd) – Arabic for "web/network" Registry: International Domain Registry Pty. Ltd. онлайн (xn--80asehdb) – Cyrillic for "online" Registry: CORE Association сайт (xn--80aswg) – Cyrillic for "site" Registry: CORE Association 游戏(xn--unup4y) – Chinese for "game(s)" Registry: Spring Fields, LLC -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sat Oct 26 14:54:28 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:54:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> <4110BE9A-EFF2-4D14-BF6A-19B29DF51437@uzh.ch> <866bfade6b0100984d85126bac6b6747.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> Message-ID: <526C0FE4.4000103@panamo.eu> IDN bids from non-US companies were 3% of the bids. An international shift? @+, Dom -- Dominique Lacroix Chercheuse associée http://cyberstrategie.org & http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Le 26/10/13 20:41, McTim a écrit : > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 2:18 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: >> At 10:15 26/10/2013, parminder at itforchange.net wrote: > > > No one would have bet a penny on a >> failure either. 5 years ago already: today ICANN has produced its first >> vanity TLDs >> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-23oct13-en.htm). > > How can you be pro-lingusitic diversity AND call them vanity TLDs: > > The four strings delegated are: > > شبكة (xn--ngbc5azd) – Arabic for "web/network" > Registry: International Domain Registry Pty. Ltd. > онлайн (xn--80asehdb) – Cyrillic for "online" > Registry: CORE Association > сайт (xn--80aswg) – Cyrillic for "site" > Registry: CORE Association > 游戏(xn--unup4y) – Chinese for "game(s)" > Registry: Spring Fields, LLC > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Oct 26 15:00:05 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 21:00:05 +0200 Subject: technical accuracy (was Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Cheha, etc.) In-Reply-To: References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0MV200FC4O373AG0@nk11p00mm-smtpin010.mac.com> <9096D3FD-330C-47C9-B7DA-45F3869D84AC@virtualized.org> <0MV5000MWFUC5TB0@n > <2AC06CE0-2064-4A4A-BA1D-2B7092BDE54F@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On 19:47 26/10/2013, David Conrad said: >[cc and subject lines cleaned up] > >JFC, > >On Oct 25, 2013, at 9:34 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > > In order to have a chance of success that "Technical Coalition" > strategy has to be inclusive both technically and conceptually. > Your responses show that it is not. >My responses show that I take issue with technical inaccuracy, nothing more. The issue was just to know about the cooperation desire of the Technical Community coalition with the rest of the stakeholders. In order to know if we are confronted to a positive precautionary move or to a negative power grab. >Well, OK, that and I personally find it discourteous to folks who >might not be fully comfortable in English to make up words and play >silly word games. Well, you are welcome to make up the English missing terms in more civilized/advanced languages ... Personnaly I find "wholization" accurate but awfull. > > For you the internet root is the unique reference point of the > universe instead of being one of the 65,635 windows for the > universe on the Internet DNS (RFC 1035). >For me (and I believe most people), the Internet root is the unique >reference point to the common namespace used in resolving names on >the Internet via the DNS protocol suite. Yes this is what I understand you presume. Since you are all for accuracy this means that these "most people" will not raise normative contradiction. A good news for the rest of us. >Also, I do not equate the Internet with the universe. We were talking of the digital naming roots. Internet is not concerned. What you taught me is that even when discussing in English with someone who has been in charge and who takes issue with technical inaccuracy it is better to detail the things in a non-internet language. I mean that when two systems are to interface and be compatible togther one can try the courtesy to use the words and the language of the other side to simplify their task. From your response, I gather that on this specific issue, we should not proceed that way. We would probably be better in using the ITU or the JTC1 first, rather than trying to jointly propose with IETF. This might be a very precious tip. Thank you! > > 2. I talked of the INTLFILE as the open repository of the roots > of the human digital names and numbers. You doubted it because the > authors of its IANA abstract did not acknowledge the names of those > who selected the labels they used. > >Well, no. I expressed surprise that there was no reference by the >authors of the DNS specifications to your and your colleagues work >since it would comprise a core component of the DNS namespace and >according to you it pre-dated the DNS specifications by nearly a >decade. Next time I meet up with Paul Mockapetris, I'm planning on >asking him about it -- I've always been a bit curious how the >initial set of TLDs (other than .ARPA -- that one is obvious) were chosen. The test to know if the guy you talk to knows about the story is to ask him "why .uk"? > >> When someone asserts "This why they designed the DNS to support > 35,635 roots." I feel a need to comment. > > RFC 1035, ICANN ICP/3. >I am reasonably familiar with both RFC 1035 (having written a couple >of partial implementations of the DNS) and ICP-3. I guess I'm not >bright enough to derive how either of those documents lead to a view >that the DNS was designed to support 35,635 roots. As having made several roots being test operated on the Internet for 18 months (dot-root community project) in order to investgate the reliabilty running different roots and no root servers, I can tell you that this is not rocket science: just to use Bind files as per the documentation. ITU even commissionned one of us (unfortunately deceased during the study) to report them how they could replace ICANN. Multiple roots are documented as a possible future, even for the Internet, by ICP/3. If you want sometimes discuss this technically (no "open-root" fuss please) and the open-code DNS extension plan, you are most welcome. Unfortunately the dot-root report is in French. BTW you probably know this: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-23oct13-en.htm jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Oct 26 18:05:12 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 22:05:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> , <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> David I like your reply, it is very reasonable and I agree with most of your points. You've identified in greater detail how the concept of MuSH is ill-defined. I agree that we seem to know better what we are avoiding (pure intergovernmentalism) than what we are pushing for. One problem with this avoidance behavior is that intergovernmentalism can easily sneak in through the back door; e.g., via the idea that states are "just another stakeholder," or via Jeremy's willingness to accept states as "more representative and legitimate," or via empowering institutions such as GAC, and so on. If we don't know the difference between good institutions and Frankenstein-like stitch ups, we are going to get into trouble. Indeed, civil society as a whole seems really lost, imho; it is losing its ability to shape the agenda with it's me-tooism. While the Best Bits and IGC sign on statement recognizes that the term MuSH has a variety of meanings, it makes the serious mistake of focusing the Rio meeting on the general "architecture" of Internet governance and calling for general principles that are already in old WSIS statements (inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented, blah, blah). It has not translated those principles into specific proposals that would give them any meaning. Or rather, the only specific proposals - that IGF and CSTD WGEC should play an important role - are nothing if not descriptions of the status quo. And the status quo sucks, to use a highly technical academic term. That is why I refused to sign on to the statement. These kinds of mushy statements about MuSH leave the initiative entirely in the hands of the I* organizations (and their institutional agendas) and in the hands of states - who WILL be making specific proposals, believe me. CS is not advocating a single meaningful reform of the existing IG environment. That's sad. Others on this list will therefore have to organize another sign on letter that actually promotes something specific - hope you will help with that effort, David. And anyone else interested, please contact me privately. Finally, I'd like to call your attention to another potentially damaging assumption that is crippling civil society's approach to the Brazil summit. It is the equation of NSA reform with "Internet governance." See this blog post for greater development of that argument: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/26/get-realist-dont-confuse-nsa-regulation-with-internet-regulation/ --MM ________________________________ From: David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:53 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime On 25/10/2013, at 2:05 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: All It would be a mistake to let this discussion degenerate into categorizations of empty stakeholder abstractions: governments as "upholders of human rights" (cough!), technical community as good or bad, etc. This is one of the truly silly things about the decision the I* organizations made to label the proper approach to Internet governance as "the multistakeholder model." Yes. We have a range of quite different models that might be called multi-stakeholder, and an even broader range of mechanisms that can be made to fit into a multi-stakeholder ecosystem without, itself, being directly multi-stakeholder. As if there were "the" single model (there isn't), as if multistakeholderism actually described IETF (it doesn't), as if the presence of multiple stakeholders in a process automatically means good, freedom and efficiency-enhancing governance (it doesn't). No one who has closely observed the ICANN GNSO would ever think multi-stakeholderism automatically translates into goodness, freedom and efficiency. Multi-stakeholderism is a clumsy label. Parts of the current system are formally multi-stakeholder, parts are very open, and parts are perhaps a closely guarded club that is justified by some notion of 'meritocracy' (and parts - such as the GAC - are even multi-lateral). I argued the point in Bali several times that everyone is much clearer on what we are avoiding (government centric multilateralism) than what we are seeking. And that is just fine at this point. If we are still that unclear after the Brazil meeting, then that might be more of a problem. Talking about "techies" - either pro or con - is just not helpful at this point. Same goes for claims regarding "civil society." Better to talk about specific values and objectives and how VERY SPECIFIC institutional mechanisms contribute to them, or not. There is some legitimate space for concern about who is represented in meetings and decision making, and I very much do share Jeremy's concern about the I* organizations running away with the ball, but finger-pointing regarding stakeholder categories is pointless. The 'Technical Community Role in Global Internet Governance' workshop on Thursday made it fairly clear that the division between technical community and civil society (or other stakeholder groups) is a fairly artificial one, with many of us filling a variety of different roles at different times, and technical organisations often acting very much as part of civil society. And with many 'techies' in civil society or other stakeholder groups (I've got a comp sci degree etc myself, so I'm an example), and policy wonks and lawyers working for technical community orgs. The way we organise division between stakeholder categories is artificial - and while it can be useful to ensure balance, it can create as many problems as it solves. We've discussed many times the problems of artificial divisions within ICANN leading to division, siloization, and pointless competition for resources between groups that might otherwise be allies. Avri brought up in that workshop the argument (that will be very familiar to you, Milton, but perhaps not to others) that more dynamic interest groups etc might often be far more useful and appropriate than the fairly simple and rigid notions of stakeholder groups that we have now. It is worth bearing in mind as we proceed with this process that the stakeholder group categories etc are very artificial and there are many different options to approaching it, that multi-stakeholderism is a very broad, vague description that doesn't tell you much without a lot more detail. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 26 19:00:45 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:00:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Finally, I'd like to call your attention to another potentially damaging > assumption that is crippling civil society's approach to the Brazil summit. > It is the equation of NSA reform with "Internet governance." I was thinking the same thing about an hour ago. See this blog > post for greater development of that argument: > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/26/get-realist-dont-confuse-nsa-regulation-with-internet-regulation/ solid reasoning, have retweeted! -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Oct 26 19:28:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:28:04 -0400 Subject: technical accuracy (was Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Cheha, etc.) In-Reply-To: References: <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <526101F7.4000208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BA5F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <525FD5E1.9080101@cafonso.ca> <5CEF7848-21BC-4CC6-9695-6881E4E0499E@istaff.org> <52610E69.50208@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD251BAD1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0MV200FC4O373AG0@nk11p00mm-smtpin010.mac.com> <9096D3FD-330C-47C9-B7DA-45F3869D84AC@virtualized.org> <0MV5000MWF UC5TB0@n > <2AC06CE0-2064-4A4A-BA1D-2B7092BDE54F@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <82B1A34E-83D5-41CE-8DC4-B5102B0493F0@hserus.net> I am sorry but it would be much more conducive to discussion if faulty and long discredited technical "theories" aren't aired at such great length. Your implementation was not and has never been adopted at scale so its technical features or presumed benefits are anyway moot. So please adopt a more realistic terms of reference for any further discussion about DNS. The term as used refers to a specific implementation, with a fixed set of root servers, currently I. Worldwide operation, not one of any number of cranks' conception of what the DNS should be. --srs (iPad) > On 26-Oct-2013, at 15:00, JFC Morfin wrote: > > On 19:47 26/10/2013, David Conrad said: >> [cc and subject lines cleaned up] >> >> JFC, >> >> On Oct 25, 2013, at 9:34 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: >> > In order to have a chance of success that "Technical Coalition" strategy has to be inclusive both technically and conceptually. Your responses show that it is not. >> My responses show that I take issue with technical inaccuracy, nothing more. > > The issue was just to know about the cooperation desire of the Technical Community coalition with the rest of the stakeholders. In order to know if we are confronted to a positive precautionary move or to a negative power grab. > >> Well, OK, that and I personally find it discourteous to folks who might not be fully comfortable in English to make up words and play silly word games. > > Well, you are welcome to make up the English missing terms in more civilized/advanced languages ... Personnaly I find "wholization" accurate but awfull. > >> > For you the internet root is the unique reference point of the universe instead of being one of the 65,635 windows for the universe on the Internet DNS (RFC 1035). >> For me (and I believe most people), the Internet root is the unique reference point to the common namespace used in resolving names on the Internet via the DNS protocol suite. > > Yes this is what I understand you presume. Since you are all for accuracy this means that these "most people" will not raise normative contradiction. A good news for the rest of us. > >> Also, I do not equate the Internet with the universe. > > We were talking of the digital naming roots. Internet is not concerned. > > What you taught me is that even when discussing in English with someone who has been in charge and who takes issue with technical inaccuracy it is better to detail the things in a non-internet language. I mean that when two systems are to interface and be compatible togther one can try the courtesy to use the words and the language of the other side to simplify their task. From your response, I gather that on this specific issue, we should not proceed that way. > > We would probably be better in using the ITU or the JTC1 first, rather than trying to jointly propose with IETF. This might be a very precious tip. Thank you! > >> > 2. I talked of the INTLFILE as the open repository of the roots of the human digital names and numbers. You doubted it because the authors of its IANA abstract did not acknowledge the names of those who selected the labels they used. >> >> Well, no. I expressed surprise that there was no reference by the authors of the DNS specifications to your and your colleagues work since it would comprise a core component of the DNS namespace and according to you it pre-dated the DNS specifications by nearly a decade. Next time I meet up with Paul Mockapetris, I'm planning on asking him about it -- I've always been a bit curious how the initial set of TLDs (other than .ARPA -- that one is obvious) were chosen. > > The test to know if the guy you talk to knows about the story is to ask him "why .uk"? > >> >> When someone asserts "This why they designed the DNS to support 35,635 roots." I feel a need to comment. >> > RFC 1035, ICANN ICP/3. >> I am reasonably familiar with both RFC 1035 (having written a couple of partial implementations of the DNS) and ICP-3. I guess I'm not bright enough to derive how either of those documents lead to a view that the DNS was designed to support 35,635 roots. > > As having made several roots being test operated on the Internet for 18 months (dot-root community project) in order to investgate the reliabilty running different roots and no root servers, I can tell you that this is not rocket science: just to use Bind files as per the documentation. ITU even commissionned one of us (unfortunately deceased during the study) to report them how they could replace ICANN. Multiple roots are documented as a possible future, even for the Internet, by ICP/3. > > If you want sometimes discuss this technically (no "open-root" fuss please) and the open-code DNS extension plan, you are most welcome. Unfortunately the dot-root report is in French. > BTW you probably know this: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-23oct13-en.htm > > jfc > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Oct 26 20:09:32 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:09:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Joint Statement of Civil Society Delegates to the 2013 Internet Governance Forum In-Reply-To: <7595c5fbd1968bfdc5e1b219ede50ab3@cis-india.org> References: <7595c5fbd1968bfdc5e1b219ede50ab3@cis-india.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 26 21:14:29 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:14:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] 2013 Internet Governance Forum Media References: <7595c5fbd1968bfdc5e1b219ede50ab3@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133213B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.thejakartapost.com/bali-daily/2013-10-24/cyber-ethics-restoring-trust-internet-crucial.html FYI -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Oct 27 02:25:05 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:25:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> , <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <9B745412-EAAD-49EA-9E69-CEF23B33FD08@ciroap.org> On 27/10/2013, at 6:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > CS is not advocating a single meaningful reform of the existing IG environment. That's sad. Others on this list will therefore have to organize another sign on letter that actually promotes something specific - hope you will help with that effort, David. And anyone else interested, please contact me privately. It's not like that at all. It's that the more specific you get, the fewer endorsements you get. Consider that the broad and general sign-on statement has so far 50 endorsements, whereas the more specific (but still equivocal) Best Bits submission to the WGEC got only 19, and my own (much more specific) submission to the WGEC got 1 (I didn't even try for more, knowing that it was not feasible). At the Best Bits meeting and during the IGF there was absolutely no time to get more concrete proposals agreed, nor was it the right time to do so. It was, however, exactly the right time to put out something simple saying "We're here, and we expect to be involved". And even doing that generated significant opposition! Some of which you have seen on the list, some you haven't. You wouldn't believe. I would like nothing more than to get down to brass tacks and make more specific proposals, which is what we can move onto next. But coming up with proposals is the easy bit, which a lot of us have already done. The hard bit is getting a credible network of groups to join you. Good on you for taking a lead. If you like, you will be welcome to use the Best Bits infrastructure for this once it is back up. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Oct 27 08:39:05 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:39:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <4110BE9A-EFF2-4D14-BF6A-19B29DF51437@uzh.ch> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> <4110BE9A-EFF2-4D14-BF6A-19B29DF51437@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Oct 26, 2013, at 1:13 AM, William Drake wrote: > ... > The construct that there are opposing groups with fixed and antagonistic positions and this is all a matter of bargaining and concessions was not a shared reality and starting point, so he was a little puzzled. But he's getting clued in. Bill - For those of us who are fairly new to this space, could you elaborate some on the various "opposing groups with fixed and antagonistic positions"? Thanks! /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Oct 27 09:28:55 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:28:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <9B745412-EAAD-49EA-9E69-CEF23B33FD08@ciroap.org> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <9B745412-EAAD-49EA-9E69-CEF23B33FD08@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/10/2013, at 6:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > CS is not advocating a single meaningful reform of the existing IG > environment. That's sad. Others on this list will therefore have to organize > another sign on letter that actually promotes something specific - hope you > will help with that effort, David. And anyone else interested, please > contact me privately. > > > It's not like that at all. It's that the more specific you get, the fewer > endorsements you get. Consider that the broad and general sign-on statement > has so far 50 endorsements, whereas the more specific (but still equivocal) > Best Bits submission to the WGEC got only 19, and my own (much more > specific) submission to the WGEC got 1 (I didn't even try for more, knowing > that it was not feasible). > > At the Best Bits meeting and during the IGF there was absolutely no time to > get more concrete proposals agreed, nor was it the right time to do so. > It was, however, exactly the right time to put out something simple saying > "We're here, and we expect to be involved". And even doing that generated > significant opposition! How could that generate opposition? It was poisoning of the well with the "power grab" meme, combined with physical intimidation of one of our members by another plus the anti-MS snark that generated opposition. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Unfortunately, those most eager to change ICANN oversight are all vinegar and no honey! -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Oct 27 09:40:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 09:40:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <9B745412-EAAD-49EA-9E69-CEF23B33FD08@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Ah, the usual uncivil society types at work again. I never did hear the entire story of why so many people walked out of the IGC face to face meeting .. --srs (iPad) > On 27-Oct-2013, at 9:28, McTim wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 27/10/2013, at 6:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> CS is not advocating a single meaningful reform of the existing IG >> environment. That's sad. Others on this list will therefore have to organize >> another sign on letter that actually promotes something specific - hope you >> will help with that effort, David. And anyone else interested, please >> contact me privately. >> >> >> It's not like that at all. It's that the more specific you get, the fewer >> endorsements you get. Consider that the broad and general sign-on statement >> has so far 50 endorsements, whereas the more specific (but still equivocal) >> Best Bits submission to the WGEC got only 19, and my own (much more >> specific) submission to the WGEC got 1 (I didn't even try for more, knowing >> that it was not feasible). >> >> At the Best Bits meeting and during the IGF there was absolutely no time to >> get more concrete proposals agreed, nor was it the right time to do so. >> It was, however, exactly the right time to put out something simple saying >> "We're here, and we expect to be involved". And even doing that generated >> significant opposition! > > How could that generate opposition? It was poisoning of the well with the > "power grab" meme, combined with physical intimidation of one of our members > by another plus the anti-MS snark that generated opposition. > > You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Unfortunately, > those most eager > to change ICANN oversight are all vinegar and no honey! > > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Oct 27 13:40:14 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:40:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Oct 27 14:07:17 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:07:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> , <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2538871@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, with regard to the civil society approach to the Brazil summit, I'd like to add one additional dimension: When one observes activities from advocacy organizations that seem to demonstrate a willingness to trust or work closely with governments, one may be seeing tactical civil society initiatives designed to take advantage of policymakers' emotional (and substantive) reactions to political events, seeking to drive policy by taking those reactions into account. So, at least for some in civil society, the Brazilian initiative involves working closely with the Brazilian government, understanding that our motivations and ultimate goals may be quite divergent, in an effort to shift or expand feelings about surveillance into focusing on other important policy concerns. So I believe many people have their eyes open to the concerns you raise, but nonetheless seek to engage the government(s) motivated to address policy issues and use that opening to press for addressing important substantive issues. You are of course right that we should never lose sight of the ultimate power and self-interest of all governments, and take that into account in all our interactions. I urge everyone to now turn to WHAT they want the Brazil summit to address and how best to work together to achieve our shared goals. On Oct 26, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > David > I like your reply, it is very reasonable and I agree with most of your points. > You've identified in greater detail how the concept of MuSH is ill-defined. I agree that we seem to know better what we are avoiding (pure intergovernmentalism) than what we are pushing for. One problem with this avoidance behavior is that intergovernmentalism can easily sneak in through the back door; e.g., via the idea that states are "just another stakeholder," or via Jeremy's willingness to accept states as "more representative and legitimate," or via empowering institutions such as GAC, and so on. If we don't know the difference between good institutions and Frankenstein-like stitch ups, we are going to get into trouble. > > Indeed, civil society as a whole seems really lost, imho; it is losing its ability to shape the agenda with it's me-tooism. > > While the Best Bits and IGC sign on statement recognizes that the term MuSH has a variety of meanings, it makes the serious mistake of focusing the Rio meeting on the general "architecture" of Internet governance and calling for general principles that are already in old WSIS statements (inclusive, people-centric, development-oriented, blah, blah). It has not translated those principles into specific proposals that would give them any meaning. Or rather, the only specific proposals - that IGF and CSTD WGEC should play an important role - are nothing if not descriptions of the status quo. And the status quo sucks, to use a highly technical academic term. That is why I refused to sign on to the statement. > > These kinds of mushy statements about MuSH leave the initiative entirely in the hands of the I* organizations (and their institutional agendas) and in the hands of states - who WILL be making specific proposals, believe me. > > CS is not advocating a single meaningful reform of the existing IG environment. That's sad. Others on this list will therefore have to organize another sign on letter that actually promotes something specific - hope you will help with that effort, David. And anyone else interested, please contact me privately. > > Finally, I'd like to call your attention to another potentially damaging assumption that is crippling civil society's approach to the Brazil summit. It is the equation of NSA reform with "Internet governance." See this blog post for greater development of that argument: > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/26/get-realist-dont-confuse-nsa-regulation-with-internet-regulation/ > > --MM > From: David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 8:53 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime > > > On 25/10/2013, at 2:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> All >> >> It would be a mistake to let this discussion degenerate into categorizations of empty stakeholder abstractions: governments as "upholders of human rights" (cough!), technical community as good or bad, etc. This is one of the truly silly things about the decision the I* organizations made to label the proper approach to Internet governance as "the multistakeholder model." > > Yes. We have a range of quite different models that might be called multi-stakeholder, and an even broader range of mechanisms that can be made to fit into a multi-stakeholder ecosystem without, itself, being directly multi-stakeholder. > >> As if there were "the" single model (there isn't), as if multistakeholderism actually described IETF (it doesn't), as if the presence of multiple stakeholders in a process automatically means good, freedom and efficiency-enhancing governance (it doesn't). > > No one who has closely observed the ICANN GNSO would ever think multi-stakeholderism automatically translates into goodness, freedom and efficiency. > Multi-stakeholderism is a clumsy label. Parts of the current system are formally multi-stakeholder, parts are very open, and parts are perhaps a closely guarded club that is justified by some notion of 'meritocracy' (and parts - such as the GAC - are even multi-lateral). I argued the point in Bali several times that everyone is much clearer on what we are avoiding (government centric multilateralism) than what we are seeking. And that is just fine at this point. If we are still that unclear after the Brazil meeting, then that might be more of a problem. > >> Talking about "techies" - either pro or con - is just not helpful at this point. Same goes for claims regarding "civil society." Better to talk about specific values and objectives and how VERY SPECIFIC institutional mechanisms contribute to them, or not. There is some legitimate space for concern about who is represented in meetings and decision making, and I very much do share Jeremy's concern about the I* organizations running away with the ball, but finger-pointing regarding stakeholder categories is pointless. > > The 'Technical Community Role in Global Internet Governance' workshop on Thursday made it fairly clear that the division between technical community and civil society (or other stakeholder groups) is a fairly artificial one, with many of us filling a variety of different roles at different times, and technical organisations often acting very much as part of civil society. And with many 'techies' in civil society or other stakeholder groups (I've got a comp sci degree etc myself, so I'm an example), and policy wonks and lawyers working for technical community orgs. The way we organise division between stakeholder categories is artificial - and while it can be useful to ensure balance, it can create as many problems as it solves. We've discussed many times the problems of artificial divisions within ICANN leading to division, siloization, and pointless competition for resources between groups that might otherwise be allies. Avri brought up in that workshop the argument (that will be very familiar to you, Milton, but perhaps not to others) that more dynamic interest groups etc might often be far more useful and appropriate than the fairly simple and rigid notions of stakeholder groups that we have now. > > It is worth bearing in mind as we proceed with this process that the stakeholder group categories etc are very artificial and there are many different options to approaching it, that multi-stakeholderism is a very broad, vague description that doesn't tell you much without a lot more detail. > > Cheers > > David > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From langdonorr at gmail.com Sun Oct 27 17:46:26 2013 From: langdonorr at gmail.com (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 05:46:26 +0800 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder group distinctions (was Re: Ad hoc...) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332136@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <20131026034747.1ea56efa@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332136@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Missed this while travelling but I want to give me total support to what Wolfgang (and others) are saying here... It resonates perfectly with my approach of "being at the discussion table to be able to influence and make change" approach... *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr On 26 October 2013 11:22, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Being located in different baskets does not mean that you have not a lot > of things in common. As I said in a previous mail, CS has to start from its > basic values and interests. From this point we have to identify the spaces > for close cooperation with other stakeholders, including PS and TC. In this > process we will discover also the differences (as recently in the Bali > discussion around the proposed Brazil meeting)which does not exclude a > close collaboration where we can work together. Building bridges is better > than building walls. > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow > Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 03:47 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: Constance Bommelaer > Betreff: [governance] Stakeholder group distinctions (was Re: Ad hoc...) > > David Cake wrote: > > > The 'Technical Community Role in Global Internet Governance' > > workshop on Thursday made it fairly clear that the division between > > technical community and civil society (or other stakeholder groups) > > is a fairly artificial one, with many of us filling a variety of > > different roles at different times > > What does this imply for processes such as the CSTD WG on Enhanced > Cooperation where the selection of participants is based on this kind > of stakeholder categories? > > If I've been hearing right what Constance Bommelaer, who was the tech > community "focal point" for that selection process, has been telling > me (I'm Cc'ing Constance in the hope that she'll correct me if I'm in > any way misrepresenting this), the tech community's selection process > has been based on the goal of selecting people who are somehow > specifically representative of the particular kind of perspective that > is characteristic of that community of techies and academics. > > Furthermore, they're working on a paper that will explain this and > the underlying principles in significant clarity. > > I think that it will be very valuable for us in civil society to follow > that example and undertake a similar clarification exercise in regard > to our own identity as a community, etc. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Oct 27 22:00:04 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:00:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <9ECFCB8D-599E-4355-B5EB-95872C57F8EA@uzh.ch> <5269E5C7.7060405@itforchange.net> <4110BE9A-EFF2-4D14-BF6A-19B29DF51437@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4C6C0BFE-6CC1-4371-A884-0FD1378C1714@uzh.ch> Hi John On Oct 27, 2013, at 8:39 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Oct 26, 2013, at 1:13 AM, William Drake wrote: >> ... >> The construct that there are opposing groups with fixed and antagonistic positions and this is all a matter of bargaining and concessions was not a shared reality and starting point, so he was a little puzzled. But he's getting clued in. > > Bill - > > For those of us who are fairly new to this space, could you elaborate some > on the various "opposing groups with fixed and antagonistic positions"? It's not my construct, so I'm not the best person to explain it. Anyway I'd think you could infer it from recent discussions here about 'takeovers' etc. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 27 22:48:59 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:48:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <7970CCB8-EFB7-4375-A8F9-CFAE54225D90@bolobhi.org> References: <7970CCB8-EFB7-4375-A8F9-CFAE54225D90@bolobhi.org> Message-ID: <009c01ced388$49ed8940$ddc89bc0$@gmail.com> Jeremy, I'm wondering how the chapeau for the statement was created and introduced where there is a full-throated endorsement of (let's call it "pig in a poke") MSism i.e. a multistakeholder model of agenda setting, participation and decision making from its inception. There is no indication in the initial statement of principles of such an uncritical endorsement. (I have somewhat parallel reservations about the IGF as well--at least as mentioned in the below--but these are less pressing in the current context of an IGF without the capabilities being pointed to.) For reasons I've expressed in my blog and elsewhere I find this uncritical/undefined kind of endorsement by CS of MSism extremely problematic and for that reason I can't endorse the statement. Although I agree that all stakeholders should have a role, I think that there is the issue of a role for those who might not currently be defined (or define themselves) as "stakeholders" (as per Daniel Pimenta's note) and as well the issue of possible subversion or capture of the MS process unless suitable measures are identified and implemented. I have no doubt that Brazil with its successful experience with CGI and elsewhere in integrating MS processes into on-going processes of democratic governance, participation and decision making, will be able to avoid these. However, I'm rather less sure of other of the stakeholder groups likely to be involved in the lead up to Brazil and following. M From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Sana Saleem Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 11:17 PM To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: Valeria Betancourt; Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil Hi all, Bolo Bhi, Pakistan endorses this statement. Best, Sana On 27-Oct-2013, at 9:18 pm, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Global Partners Digital endorses the statement Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at g p-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk From: Valeria Betancourt Date: Sunday, 27 October 2013 02:05 To: Anja Kovacs Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma , "bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org" , Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [bestbits] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil Hi all, The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) also endorses the statement. Valeria On 24/10/2013, at 22:12, Anja Kovacs wrote: The Internet Democracy Project, India, also endorses the statement. Think there might be a few spelling and grammar mistakes in the intro para? Shouldn't it say "poseS a challenge FOR the whole community to tackle"? Thanks, Anja On Oct 25, 2013 10:25 AM, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: Jeremy, I will give you a hug when I see you. This is the kind of thing that turns a human being into a zoombie. Norbert, kindly note that The World Wide Web Foundation has given an okay to the statement. Best Nnenna On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > For those who had not heard from my message to the governance list, > the Best Bits server has been completely lost due to a VPS > malfunction. This means that our website and mailing lists are > offline until further notice. The statement text that has emerged from our discussions is now online as a sign-on statement at http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html Greetings, Norbert ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Oct 28 01:06:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:06:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] CNN: Interview with Rep. Mike Rogers Chairman of the Congressional Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Message-ID: <006201ced39b$88776240$996626c0$@gmail.com> The US intelligence community speaks out http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2013/10/27/exp-sotu-mike-roger s-part-1.cnn&hpt=hp_t1&from_homepage=yes -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Oct 28 04:48:24 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:48:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] CNN: Interview with Rep. Mike Rogers Chairman of the Congressional Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In-Reply-To: <006201ced39b$88776240$996626c0$@gmail.com> References: <006201ced39b$88776240$996626c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 06:06 28/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2013/10/27/exp-sotu-mike-rogers-part-1.cnn&hpt=hp_t1&from_homepage=yes We are engaged in a WWW (whole world war) to grab the "huge bounty" (RFC 6852) resulting from the digital wholization (*). This war has laws. Our priority should concern these laws, as we can ethically only side with people who are respecting the law in protecting themselves/us. An important clarification step on the laws that apply is the Tallin Manual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallinn_Manual). Edouard Snowden has made people aware of that war. It takes time for them to digest the shock. (1) First they are shocked by the awareness of some of the war acts, because the ongoing war do not fit with their picture of modernity. (2) Then they will be shocked in realizing what is the impact of this war on their daily life (the crisis). (3) Then they will start being interested in the ways for them to practically survive to this war, for some to take advantage from it, and how to get organized to reduce the impact. (4) Then they will start better knowing, more deeply understanding and comprehending together, so they can terminate it. IMHO the survival priority today for politicians, activists, professionals and lead users is level 3. jfc (*) The "wholization" concept is most common in other languages, like French, under the term of "globalisation" (The English "global" concept is then termed as "mondial"). It results from the synergy which makes the well known Aristotelician difference between the whole and the sum of its parts. Complexity makes this synergy positive (negentropy), complication makes this synergy negative (entropy). In the digital case, the I* Society has identified the difference as a "huge bounty" (RFC 6852) that results from its standards. In turn, these standards should be driven by the economy of the markets of the internet global communities. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Oct 28 07:58:54 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:43:54 +0545 Subject: [governance] photos from the IGF Message-ID: <68BBD22E-25B8-4BA0-B589-0A0273921DD0@consensus.pro> Dear all, As it doesn’t appear that the IGF itself is posting any images to their Flickr page (and they didn’t have an official photographer this time so that makes sense), perhaps those of you who did take pictures might post links to where you have posted them? Regards, Nick -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Mon Oct 28 09:13:52 2013 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:13:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] photos from the IGF In-Reply-To: <68BBD22E-25B8-4BA0-B589-0A0273921DD0@consensus.pro> References: <68BBD22E-25B8-4BA0-B589-0A0273921DD0@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <1382966032.41525.YahooMailNeo@web28905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> That's a great idea. I would like to see the pictures as well. Thanks   ------------------------------------------------------ Arsene Tungali, *Executive Director, Rudi International email: rudi.intl at yahoo.fr Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rudiinternational  web: www.rudiinternational.wordpress.com *Agronomy Sciences, Goma University Blog: http://tungali.blogspot.com/ Tel.: +243993810967, 853181857 Facebook-Twitter: Arsene Tungali Skype: arsenetungali Demmocratic Republic of Congo Le Lundi 28 octobre 2013 14h34, Nick Ashton-Hart a écrit : Dear all, As it doesn’t appear that the IGF itself is posting any images to their Flickr page (and they didn’t have an official photographer this time so that makes sense), perhaps those of you who did take pictures might post links to where you have posted them? Regards, Nick ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Oct 28 14:39:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:39:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] How an elder from a hunter gatherer tribe in Papua New Guinea adopted facebook Message-ID: <526eaf71.Sz1l/8kmcF/HJEAZ%suresh@hserus.net> And discovered how feathers add balance and speed to arrows. Lovely read, I think you'd like this, franck and sala among others. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/the_tribesman_who_facebook_friended_me/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Oct 28 20:42:38 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:42:38 +0800 Subject: [governance] Leading Cuban Blogger: Challenges of Women in Leadership Message-ID: Dear All, Leading Cuban Blogger will participate in a Googe+ Hangout on Challenges for Women Leaders. This session will also include US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta S. Jacobson at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 29. [Washington DC time] The Hangout will feature leading Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who achieved international fame and has received multiple awards for her thoughtfully perceptive portrayals of life in Cuba. During the Hangout, Assistant Secretary Jacobson and Yoani Sanchez will respond to questions submitted via Twitter from Cuban-American youth, and discuss life lessons pertaining to women’s aspirations. The live event in Spanish will be coordinated with Google and *Raices de Esperanza.* Assistant Secretary Jacobson's participation in this event represents the Department of State’s ongoing efforts to promote leadership and professional development of women, and to strengthen independent civil society. The Hangout can be viewed live at the U.S. Department of State’s Google+ and YouTube channel. For more information, follow @USAenEspanol on Twitter, using the hashtag #MujerLider. Official media note which is available in Spanish . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Oct 28 21:53:58 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 02:53:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC decision-making (was Re: Draft Civil Society Brief...) Message-ID: Thank for Norbert for the precisions on charter rules. The election of the next co-co could be an opportunity to update the IGC charter. Louis - - - On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Louis Pouzin wrote: > > > As long as an individual veto can block any output from IGC there is > > no way to produce meaningful declarations on a sensitive issue. > > Actually this situation applies only to decisions that would need to be > taken under strong time pressure. Otherwise the IGC Charter allows to > proceed to use a rough consensus process after the consensus process has > failed. (The rough consensus process in the IGC Charter has a 48 hours > rule which prevents it from being used in the context of very tight > deadlines.) > > > At > > the moment the totalitarian strategy of the US gov makes all internet > > issues bipolar, either siding with the US gov or not, while hiding > > behind rhetorical fig leaves. > > > > Another charter is needed, with perhaps 2/3 majority or more, but not > > unanimity. Can this be achieved through the present charter, > > The present charter allows for changes to the charter to be adopted by > means of the following process: > > > Amendments to the Charter > > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than > ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of > the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending > the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In > amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election > will be deemed a member for amending the charter. > > > > or should IGC be formally dissolved and recreated ? > > There is no explicitly-defined process for formally dissolving IGC, but > if there was a strong enough desire to formally dissolve IGC, the > Charter could be amended to add procedures for such a step, which > could then be executed. > > In my view, such a step should not be taken unless a clearly better > structure has been created first and it has proved its worth. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Oct 28 22:10:07 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 03:10:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: At IGF, Glimpses Of Future IP Governance Overshadowed By Mass Surveillance Away from traditional free trade agreement negotiations with secret chapters on stricter intellectual property protection, perceptions are slowly evolving about the need to make IP systems work better. One of 100+ sessions at the 8th United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Bali, Indonesia last week featured “intellectual property exchanges” as marketplaces for knowledge. But IP policy did not take centre stage and neither did other access topics in Bali, which instead was overshadowed by the recent revelations of mass surveillance by US intelligence services. *More* http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/10/28/at-igf-glimpses-of-future-ip-governance-overshadowed-by-mass-surveillance/#more-32555 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gorka.orueta at ehu.es Tue Oct 29 02:16:03 2013 From: gorka.orueta at ehu.es (Gorka Orueta) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 08:16:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, Please include my name as individual endorsement. Thanks Gorka Orueta Estibariz Irakasleen, Mugikortasunaren eta Erakundeekiko Harremanen Dekanordea/Vicedecano de Profesorado, Movilidad y Relaciones Institucionalesgorka.orueta at ehu.es 946018378688673789 GIZARTE ETA KOMUNIKAZIO ZIENTZIEN FAKULTATEA /FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES Y DE LA COMUNICACION UPV/EHU Barrio Sarriena,s/n | 48940 LEIOA T.: +34 946018378 | F.: +34 946013299 www.ehu.es/csc ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta egotea. Mezuak badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, korreo honi erantzunda. Kontuz! Mezua ez bada zuretzat, ez erabili, ez zabaldu beste inori, ez kopiatu eta ez baliatu. ¡ATENCIÓN! Este mensaje contiene información privilegiada o confidencial a la que sólo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por error le agradeceríamos que no hiciera uso de la información y que se pusiese en contacto con el remitente. E-mail hau inprimatu baino lehen egiaztatu inprimatzeko beharra. Antes de imprimir este e-mail piense bien si es necesario hacerlo. El 25/10/13 3:44, "Norbert Bollow" escribió: > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 30FB7B6A-2AA1-4840-8F66-81D12C0EB54E[46].png Type: image/png Size: 14271 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8CB2BB59-BDB6-45C8-A6F3-73173926A0FE[46].png Type: image/png Size: 550 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From babatope at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 04:12:48 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:12:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <20131025034458.4f6b3ad6@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, Please add my individual endorsement to the statement. Regards, On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Gorka Orueta wrote: > Hi Norbert, > > Please include my name as individual endorsement. > Thanks > > *Gorka Orueta Estibariz* > Irakasleen, Mugikortasunaren eta Erakundeekiko Harremanen Dekanordea/ > > Vicedecano de Profesorado, Movilidad y Relaciones Institucionales > > gorka.orueta at ehu.es > 946018378 > > 688673789 > > *GIZARTE ETA KOMUNIKAZIO ZIENTZIEN FAKULTATEA /FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS > SOCIALES Y DE LA COMUNICACION > UPV/EHU* > Barrio Sarriena,s/n | 48940 LEIOA > *T.: +34 946018378* | *F.: +34 946013299* > *www.ehu.es/csc* **** > > [image: > http://www.unibertsitate-hedakuntza.ehu.es/p268-content/es/contenidos/informacion/manual_id_corp/es_manual/images/firma_email_upv_euskampus_bilingue.gif] > **** > > ERNE! Baliteke mezu honen zatiren bat edo mezu osoa legez babestuta > egotea. Mezuak badu bere hartzailea. Okerreko helbidera heldu bada > (helbidea gaizki idatzi, transmisioak huts egin) eman abisu igorleari, > korreo honi erantzunda. Kontuz! Mezua ez bada zuretzat, ez erabili, ez > zabaldu beste inori, ez kopiatu eta ez baliatu. > ¡ATENCIÓN! Este mensaje contiene información privilegiada o confidencial a > la que sólo tiene derecho a acceder el destinatario. Si usted lo recibe por > error le agradeceríamos que no hiciera uso de la información y que se > pusiese en contacto con el remitente.**** > > [image: > http://www.unibertsitate-hedakuntza.ehu.es/p077-9030/es/contenidos/informacion/manual_id_corp/es_manual/images/recicla_firma_email_upv.gif] > **** > > E-mail hau inprimatu baino lehen egiaztatu inprimatzeko beharra. > Antes de imprimir este e-mail piense bien si es necesario hacerlo. > > El 25/10/13 3:44, "Norbert Bollow" escribió: > > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Babatope Soremi A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... TB Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort. *John Ruskin * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 30FB7B6A-2AA1-4840-8F66-81D12C0EB54E[46].png Type: image/png Size: 14271 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8CB2BB59-BDB6-45C8-A6F3-73173926A0FE[46].png Type: image/png Size: 550 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 15:07:59 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:07:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! Message-ID: Marco Civil vote was postponed to next week, locking vote on other ordinary issues until them. The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia, but it would be good to have material out there from you all supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed in Brasilia right now.... http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm C -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Oct 29 15:45:08 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:45:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Congratulations, John Crain Message-ID: <52701044.DekSVx7yaoXrdgQb%suresh@hserus.net> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131029_john_crain_named_icann_chief_security_sta bility_resiliency_officer/ --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Oct 29 20:26:14 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:26:14 -0200 Subject: [governance] Leading Cuban Blogger: Challenges of Women in Leadership In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52705226.1010706@cafonso.ca> Sala, in our region we know more about Yoani. She is not a Cuban leader, just an opposition writer fully supported by the USA. Just announcing this in this list makes most Latin Americans here uncomfortable, to say the least. fraternal regards --c.a. On 10/28/2013 10:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > Leading Cuban Blogger will participate in a Googe+ Hangout on Challenges > for Women Leaders. This session will also include US Assistant Secretary > of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta S. Jacobson at 2:00 p.m. > on Tuesday, October 29. [Washington DC time] > > The Hangout will feature leading Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who > achieved international fame and has received multiple awards for her > thoughtfully perceptive portrayals of life in Cuba. > > During the Hangout, Assistant Secretary Jacobson and Yoani Sanchez will > respond to questions submitted via Twitter from Cuban-American youth, > and discuss life lessons pertaining to women’s aspirations. The live > event in Spanish will be coordinated with Google and *Raices de Esperanza.* > > Assistant Secretary Jacobson's participation in this event represents > the Department of State’s ongoing efforts to promote leadership and > professional development of women, and to strengthen independent civil > society. > > The Hangout can be viewed live at the U.S. Department of State’s Google+ > and > YouTube channel. For more > information, follow @USAenEspanol on Twitter, using the hashtag #MujerLider. > > Official media note which is available in Spanish > . > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 20:48:35 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:48:35 +0800 Subject: [governance] Leading Cuban Blogger: Challenges of Women in Leadership In-Reply-To: <52705226.1010706@cafonso.ca> References: <52705226.1010706@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Lol, thanks Carlos, good to know. Sent from my iPad > On Oct 30, 2013, at 8:26 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > Sala, in our region we know more about Yoani. She is not a Cuban leader, just an opposition writer fully supported by the USA. > > Just announcing this in this list makes most Latin Americans here uncomfortable, to say the least. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > >> On 10/28/2013 10:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Leading Cuban Blogger will participate in a Googe+ Hangout on Challenges >> for Women Leaders. This session will also include US Assistant Secretary >> of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta S. Jacobson at 2:00 p.m. >> on Tuesday, October 29. [Washington DC time] >> >> The Hangout will feature leading Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who >> achieved international fame and has received multiple awards for her >> thoughtfully perceptive portrayals of life in Cuba. >> >> During the Hangout, Assistant Secretary Jacobson and Yoani Sanchez will >> respond to questions submitted via Twitter from Cuban-American youth, >> and discuss life lessons pertaining to women’s aspirations. The live >> event in Spanish will be coordinated with Google and *Raices de Esperanza.* >> >> Assistant Secretary Jacobson's participation in this event represents >> the Department of State’s ongoing efforts to promote leadership and >> professional development of women, and to strengthen independent civil >> society. >> >> The Hangout can be viewed live at the U.S. Department of State’s Google+ >> and >> YouTube channel. For more >> information, follow @USAenEspanol on Twitter, using the hashtag #MujerLider. >> >> Official media note which is available in Spanish >> . > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Oct 29 22:04:10 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 03:04:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Carolina, Net neutrality (NN) is a sensitive, but fuzzy issue. Here attached is a paper I wrote for the Dyn. Coalition on NN in Bali. Best, Louis. - - - On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Marco Civil vote was postponed to next week, locking vote on other > ordinary issues until them. > > The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial > moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia, > but it would be good to have material out there from you all > supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed > in Brasilia right now.... > > > http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm > > C > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Net Neutrality and Quality of Service-en.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 22:49:59 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 22:49:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN 5 year plan available for comment Message-ID: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategic-29oct13-en.htm Much in here to applaud! -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 30 04:39:37 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:39:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] ! Marco Civil vote posponed ! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 20:07 29/10/2013, Carolina Rossini wrote: >The main "trouble" issue is net neutrality. We are in a very crucial >moment and we can lose on that front. We need Brazilians in Brasilia, >but it would be good to have material out there from you all >supporting NN. Lets think about what can help. But telcos are massed >in Brasilia right now.... > >http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2013/10/29/camara-adia-mais-mais-uma-vez-a-votacao-do-marco-civil-da-internet.htm Louis is right, the terms "net" and "neutrality" are not defined. Therefore, their concatenation in "net neutrality" might seem doubly undefined and subjective. However, "neutral" means "indifferent to". This logically makes "net neutrality" to mean "for the net (whatever it may be) to be indifferent to". Now, there are the two points of view of the user and of the provider, two entities that are independent from the net (whatever it may be). Semantically, this therefore means there are two "net neutrality" principles: 1. on the provider side: he should provide a service (whatever it may be) that is independent from the kind of user. This takes care of the disparities between customers and traffic levels. 2. on the user side: he should receive a service (whatever it may be) that is independent from the provider. This takes care of the advantages to the "most favored partner" . Now, what is targeted is a fair commercial relation that both sides can trust. The proposition of each provider and the competition among providers to satisfy the users should solve most of the problem as far as the two "net neutralities" can be openly compared. This is not the case if: 1. the provider may provide a form of monopolistic (i.e. non commercial) advantage (whatever the nature and degree) to partners or to its own services. This is an abuse of a dominant position in its delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting. 2. the user is purposedly put at disadvantage in his choices by a lack of information. This is an abuse of a trust in the delegated management of the user's catenet within the global interneting. From the above, one sees that one can rephrase the whole issue from an OpenUse point of view. An ISP is not actually someone who provides you an internet link that he could manage to his advantage. This is someone you entrust with the best management of your internet. In this case, net neutrality is a part of his best effort, and net partiality is a breach of your trust. The interest of this approach is that it does not call for a special complicate law and is open to adaptative subsidiary legislation. In most of the cases, the confusion we suffer from, as being the users, is the one Louis has clarified a long ago: the internet is NOT a network, but "a network of networks". It includes the network of each user. We are not the users of an "internet": we intelligently use (IUse) network tools to concatenate our personal network with the rest of the networks of the world. ICANN, RIRs, Government, etc. do not control in part the "internet network": they provide elements (computer, lines, programs, hosts, rules, electric power, education, etc.) we use to design, build, use and manage better our own personal or corporate relational spaces within the digital international networking space (InterNet). -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Oct 30 05:52:29 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:52:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft Civil Society Brief [Background/Overview and Proposal] In-Reply-To: References: <335AB142-7005-4C98-9724-167ABA8FE764@ciroap.org> <20131025022040.5a89345b@swan.bollow.ch> <5269C35E.10407@itforchange.net> <6EEFFF48-052F-4BF6-936F-4D5AAB39BD71@ella.com> Message-ID: I am not sure what happened here, but it is sad that we have come to that. I haven't heard the other side of the story, but it is just unacceptable that any one of us would do anything or speak in anyway to anyone else among us in such a way that the latter would feel physically intimated --much less threatened (whether the two are meant to be synonymous in the situation at hand, which I am not presuming, or not.) As much as I would want to be able to include also "morally intimidated" in that statement, I'm afraid that notion might be more elusive and difficult to nail down in a multicultural setting, and many of us have probably and more than once felt "morally intimidated" by the tone of some of our discussions. I would urge all participants to try and keep that in mind when posting, and above all while in face-to-face meetings, to stay away from any physical manner of engagement or bodily discomposure (for lack of better words... only due to my own limitations.) Thanks, Mawaki On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:09 AM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 25 Oct 2013, at 09:03, parminder wrote: > > > >> It will a pity if IGC begins to kind of cast off its role as a > consensus seeker for common positions and doing advocacy on the basis of > that.. > > > > > > Until such time as the intimidation of IGC member stops, and i have > filed a formal objection to the physical intimidation i was subjected to, i > do not see how the IGC can continue. > > > +1 > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Oct 30 05:55:13 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:55:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] Stakeholder group distinctions (was Re: Ad hoc...) In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <258A50E9-9587-44BE-A74B-1CE0A1C3FB75@difference.com.au> <20131026034747.1ea56efa@swan.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332136@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfie, I like that quote: "Building bridges is better than building walls." That is to feature next to other famous quotes such as, for instance, the Unesco's "It is in the mind of man..." about war and peace. (Or is that a common meme that just escaped my attention? In which case I guess I'm sounding ridiculous right now.) Anyway, as I also already said before --so I agree not only with Wolfgang but also with myself ;-) --it's better to start with positively defining one's identity (by clarifying what it is, what you stand for) before negatively defining or applying it, if at all (by saying who's not in, who's out of it.) Mawaki On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > Missed this while travelling but I want to give me total support to what > Wolfgang (and others) are saying here... It resonates perfectly with my > approach of "being at the discussion table to be able to influence and make > change" approach... > > *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* > http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr > > > On 26 October 2013 11:22, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> Being located in different baskets does not mean that you have not a lot >> of things in common. As I said in a previous mail, CS has to start from its >> basic values and interests. From this point we have to identify the spaces >> for close cooperation with other stakeholders, including PS and TC. In this >> process we will discover also the differences (as recently in the Bali >> discussion around the proposed Brazil meeting)which does not exclude a >> close collaboration where we can work together. Building bridges is better >> than building walls. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow >> Gesendet: Sa 26.10.2013 03:47 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Cc: Constance Bommelaer >> Betreff: [governance] Stakeholder group distinctions (was Re: Ad hoc...) >> >> David Cake wrote: >> >> > The 'Technical Community Role in Global Internet Governance' >> > workshop on Thursday made it fairly clear that the division between >> > technical community and civil society (or other stakeholder groups) >> > is a fairly artificial one, with many of us filling a variety of >> > different roles at different times >> >> What does this imply for processes such as the CSTD WG on Enhanced >> Cooperation where the selection of participants is based on this kind >> of stakeholder categories? >> >> If I've been hearing right what Constance Bommelaer, who was the tech >> community "focal point" for that selection process, has been telling >> me (I'm Cc'ing Constance in the hope that she'll correct me if I'm in >> any way misrepresenting this), the tech community's selection process >> has been based on the goal of selecting people who are somehow >> specifically representative of the particular kind of perspective that >> is characteristic of that community of techies and academics. >> >> Furthermore, they're working on a paper that will explain this and >> the underlying principles in significant clarity. >> >> I think that it will be very valuable for us in civil society to follow >> that example and undertake a similar clarification exercise in regard >> to our own identity as a community, etc. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Wed Oct 30 06:30:15 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:30:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] Leading Cuban Blogger: Challenges of Women in Leadership In-Reply-To: References: <52705226.1010706@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Regional politics combined with conspiracies and propaganda are hard to verify unless you are very conversant with the politics of the regions. It's usually difficult to know who is speaking the truth. But civil society activists are easy to spot because the stand by core principles that benefit humanity in the long run. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 30 October 2013 03:48, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Lol, thanks Carlos, good to know. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Oct 30, 2013, at 8:26 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > > > Sala, in our region we know more about Yoani. She is not a Cuban leader, > just an opposition writer fully supported by the USA. > > > > Just announcing this in this list makes most Latin Americans here > uncomfortable, to say the least. > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > >> On 10/28/2013 10:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> Leading Cuban Blogger will participate in a Googe+ Hangout on Challenges > >> for Women Leaders. This session will also include US Assistant Secretary > >> of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta S. Jacobson at 2:00 p.m. > >> on Tuesday, October 29. [Washington DC time] > >> > >> The Hangout will feature leading Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who > >> achieved international fame and has received multiple awards for her > >> thoughtfully perceptive portrayals of life in Cuba. > >> > >> During the Hangout, Assistant Secretary Jacobson and Yoani Sanchez will > >> respond to questions submitted via Twitter from Cuban-American youth, > >> and discuss life lessons pertaining to women’s aspirations. The live > >> event in Spanish will be coordinated with Google and *Raices de > Esperanza.* > >> > >> Assistant Secretary Jacobson's participation in this event represents > >> the Department of State’s ongoing efforts to promote leadership and > >> professional development of women, and to strengthen independent civil > >> society. > >> > >> The Hangout can be viewed live at the U.S. Department of State’s Google+ > >> < > https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/102630068213960289352/events/cvllf9bc2rnb1rjfdisg2n49s68?authkey=CPzexr_264G0xwE> > and > >> YouTube channel. For more > >> information, follow @USAenEspanol on Twitter, using the hashtag > #MujerLider. > >> > >> Official media note which is available in Spanish > >> . > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 30 08:01:23 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:01:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN 5 year plan available for comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Wed Oct 30 09:09:24 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:09:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations, John Crain In-Reply-To: <52701044.DekSVx7yaoXrdgQb%suresh@hserus.net> References: <52701044.DekSVx7yaoXrdgQb%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: +1. Hi John, the cap fits so ..... Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131029_john_crain_named_icann_chief_security_sta > bility_resiliency_officer/ > > --srs > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Oct 30 09:54:44 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:54:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: <20131024100314.GA2807@hserus.net> References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <20131024100314.GA2807@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I think what Bill is saying is that there appears to be a refusal to > acknowledge the technical community as civil society or even > multistakeholder in nature, so that any outreach from them is characterized > as a power grab, and there appears to be a refusal to engage in their > processes. > I read the use of the phrase "power grab" (which I did not bring in the discussion) as an individual's assessment --hence, inevitably subjective somewhat-- of a *punctual* situation, not a characterization of everything a given stakeholder group is or does in this setting. Once it was used to characterize a behavior in a given context (and only in that context) the notion can be discussed, assumptions can be made or implications drawn based on its face value (after all the person making that assessment is not what you might particularly call an outlier in this group), or conversely it may be challenged --which is all good. That's part of the normal discussion, without anyone claiming that this is the definitive characterization of what a whole group of (necessarily diverse) human beings is all about. So now leaving the "power grab" meme aside (for now), I never seriously got into the discussion as to who is CS and who's not (I guess as a matter of principle, I must be cautious using the term "never" if only because computer memory has outpaced human memory in this day and age. But seriously, I never spent time on that as far as I can remember.) The way I see this --and please be mindful that this is not a theory or anything I need or want to get universal agreement on-- is that every natural person (as in the biological individual human beings) leaving among other human beings is part of CS *unless*... Unless they willingly take on the role to represent or be the agent of a non-natural person, whether it is the government apparatus or a private corporation or any legally incorporated collection of natural individuals (which raises the question of CS organizations I'll return to below.) In this case, it is preferably up to the individual to rally with the stakeholder group where his or her principal (organization of affiliation) belongs. Or alternatively, other people who feel the participation of any such individual(s) in CS processes may skew the outcomes, presumably toward the interests of their principal which are seen as not aligned with CS interests in the subject matter may bring up objections. At this point I have no clear cut guidance to offer as to how to handle objections and counter-objections of that kind. I just have a sense that if a voluntary resolution cannot be reached, then it one way or the other becomes a matter of common sense as well as the plausibility of presumptions and claims made by all involved, in the view of the public opinion. I guess what I am trying to say is that it will always be difficult to have an authoritative procedure to resolve this in a clean manner, if the parties are not willing to cooperate and be honest with themselves about the difference that there might be between their current motivations and the goals and interests of CS. I must immediately add that as we "practice" them, I agree that those identities are mostly artificial (or at least circumstantial) and as a result, they are inevitably shifting from a context to another for the same individual. > > Civil society being as amorphous as it is, there is absolutely no bar to > any caucus or combination of people forming with their own views and ideas > - the problem lies in objecting to other such groups forming, and calling > them power grabs. > In my view, it is the prerogative of any such groups to form, and they'd do so presumably whenever they have a distinct set of objectives or interests. They are entitled to advocate for their views and simply get down to work for their realization without being called "power grabs." I would assume it would take more than that (like for instance, a deliberate attempt to shun or overshadow other stakeholders) for anyone to call that power grab. > In such a case, is it to be implied that other sections of civil society > too are intent on their own such "power grabs" where they, not the people > over in the other "power grab" call the shots and drive their ideology? > Yes, no group has the monopoly of power grabs (reason why I rejected above the notion that it was a characterization or labeling of a particular stakeholder group as a whole.) CS may be subject to power grabs, too, as we are diverse and any subset of CS may be tempted to overly influence the process at the expense and sometimes at the exclusion of others. The notion of CS I have outlined above has not addressed the case of "professional" and organized CS (through registered/incorporated legal structures.) As organizations, they have their mission and their agenda, and there might be plenty of private citizens around the world who might not be interested by such mission and agenda or others may criticize them for not using the right methods to achieve the good they claim, etc. On the face value however, and using common sense, we do understand that there is a fundamental difference between, say, Human Right Watch or Doctors Without Borders or Bytes for All, etc. (my understanding of the latter being only based on their name, so I might be wrong, but please stay on the bigger picture), and, say, the International Association of Accountants or the American Association of Banks (may not be the exact names, but you understand my point... trade associations.) Maybe one way to put it is that any individual/private citizen who finds herself in the kind of situation the former type of organizations purport to improve may (I didn't say "will") benefit from their action without the said individual having to pay a fee or a due for that. Which is not to say they are not membership organizations with due paying members. But their actions are neither primarily nor exclusively motivated by the personal interests of their members, nor are they carried out for solely and directly in the interest of those individual members. So to the extent this information is available, mission, values, interests, goals, objectives as well as actual behaviors and actions matter in appreciating in every context what (or rather whom) CS entails. Hence, as said in another thread, the importance for IGC (or global CS in IG) to clearly formulate its mission/values/goals and its interests, etc. In sum, CS at least in a global context such as this one is a broad notion that must have room for many inevitably diverse actors, and be open enough for people to be able to go and come based on what matters to them at a given point in time. At the very least, I'd say it includes the following: individuals as private citizens (representing no other than themselves), organized CS as characterized above and individuals acting on their behalf, and other sub-culture groups (to mean a specialized subset, not anything secondary) such as academia and technical community. However, there will be times and contexts where those specialized subsets may have a distinctive enough identity (based on their goals and interests, etc.) to justify they stand as a distinct stakeholder group in their own right. I'd hope that, going forward and until further notice, the above have precedence on anything else one might interpret that I mean to say when discussing about Internet stakeholders, their relationship and their relevance from CS perspective, etc. Again, it is just my own pragmatic approach to the question, which is not informed by theory or research. So yeah, I might have said one or two things that someone would find inaccurate in which case I would be glad to be enlightened. But please don't have me to have to come up here and defend myself ;-) My 2 cents, and only that. Mawaki > > That doesn't sound terribly conducive to any sort of consensus > > -suresh > > Mawaki Chango [24/10/13 09:50 +0000]: > > Hi, >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> Bill, >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake >>> wrote: >>> > Hi >>> > >>> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a >>> framing >>> > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one >>> group >>> > wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they >>> talked >>> > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully >>> agreed >>> > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get >>> > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include >>> people >>> > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the >>> desirable >>> > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there >>> to >>> > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with >>> the >>> > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own >>> relationship >>> > to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do >>> > shouldn't be able to. >>> >>> Sums it up nicely. >>> >>> > >>> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, >>> why do >>> > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? >>> >>> good question! >>> >>> >> Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about >> this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain? >> I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting >> "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past >> the >> initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint >> meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have >> different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But >> frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct >> "relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the >> most desirable and the latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't >> we do both, especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of >> CS >> and those of I* orgs are not fully aligned? >> >> And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil >> meeting" >> as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but >> since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would >> ask. >> >> >> >>> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the >>> "technical community" should take over from governments. >>> >>> >> McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But >> what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the >> first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can >> fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without >> linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there >> are direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice >> them >> literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3 >> or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't >> question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and >> just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to >> start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my >> response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such >> state of affairs has implications that you did not need to state >> explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are >> indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as >> described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you agree with that >> (as >> implied by your question), then my response to you was warranted. Note >> that >> the said response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs >> than >> it is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are >> different. >> >> Cheers! >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >>> I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and >>> regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in >>> addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes. I'm not >>> willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can >>> instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes. >>> >>> I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react. >>> Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions? >>> >>> -- >>> 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.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >>> >>> > ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Oct 30 10:03:26 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:03:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <4F4BD137-FFA3-4F97-92BA-860BA2046FE1@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2535A51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Just a small correction... for the record: In the second para./block text of my email below, I meant to write Yalta conference, NOT Malta conference... although both took place and one followed the other in 1945. Or is that the collateral effect of Diplo on my memory? :) mawaki On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Milton et al., > > Good to see you resurface, MM :-) Oh "Lawd"! What trouble have I got > myself into??? > A reminder on context... I'm not in Bali. We received a note from one of > us leading the CS organizing in Bali that the dynamic in the i orgs was > essentially a power grabbing one, tech vs. govt-centric (was not clear > where the non-tech CS fits in all that.) Then we see another person > response asking (as I understood it then, but this has been corrected > since) whether CS shouldn't feel okay with that. So what I was reacting to, > basically, is the over simplification you're denouncing which precisely, > IMHO, leads to believe that "govts are so evil that just kicking them out > of the tent (and replacing them by tech or whoever, for that matter) would > resolve our problems." I didn't defined the terms of the discussion. But > since it was reportedly about tech (and)(vs) govt, I sought to (or at least > I thought I was trying) to bring some nuance in the discussion by saying on > the one hand govt is not all evil, may be useful to something and on the > other tech does not have solution for everything, can get it wrong. That's > not finger pointing or over simplified categorization. If anyone thought I > was bashing the tech community, please amend the record --that's just not > who I am. But I'm ready to tell them, no single stakeholder group is > perfect or can get it right by itself, and we need to do this together. > Actually, if you ask me, I believe we are more capable of effecting change > if tech and CS would work intelligently together, as opposed to being > anti-tech. > > Now regarding the history lesson, yeah I learned a couple of things about > the history of the 20th century in junior high, in senior high, and had > read quite a bit about it at least for years into college, thank you! For > some of us in Africa, even our parents or grand parent also fought in the 2 > big wars that shaped that century, particularly the WW2 in order to > liberate France and stem the tide of Nazism taking over UK. I guess that > might have been a good reason to justify those episodes in far-away lands > being featured so prominently in our curricula. So yes, I know a couple of > things about Pearl Harbor, the Manhattan Project and its result, Japan > devastated and Europe in ruins, the Marshall Plan, the Malta conference and > the beginning of the saga of the United Nations and related specialized > organizations, led by... the United States. > > Let me just add this. The notion of HR was not new... English > revolutions... the French revolution... and the US founding fathers tapping > into the same ideas to shape their constitution... WW2 was the opportunity > to make those ideas universal, and the only large country that was standing > tall then, with a newly found unique power on the world stage as a > consequence of the war -- the US -- did just that and that was a good > thing. And guess what, they didn't do it by calling for another revolution > (I guess the war was enough) or for a multistakeholder summit with CS and > others. It was with its attributes and power as nation-state that the US > was able to "ram the UDHR down to everyone's throats," particularly the > other governments' and get them to sign a treaty! Can you believe that? An > international treaty, something that only sovereign governments sign into a > legal instrument. Now, I think the USG has always been one of the smartest > we've had around the world, in abstraction of whether you are on their side > or not (they just happen to do some dumb things once in a while, like any > other governments many of whom do worse, but that's another story.) So I > tend to believe they must have had some good reasons to spend their > political capital on getting a treaty that included HRs, as opposed to say, > making it just a plain, non-binding Declaration like in most previous > historical occurrences. > > Epilogue: I haven't re-read myself in the email you are responding to, but > taking it from you MM, in my phrase "a world led by governments" referring > to UDHR, the plural for "governments" was meant to be generic --not that > all govts labored hard to give birth to UDHR as a gift to the world, but > something like the following: an era where national sovereigns were mostly > in charge of world affairs, the stage of world affairs was mainly organized > around them. USG is a govt -- one of them -- and it did some good things in > the aftermath of WW2. History didn't stop with the UDHR treaty however, and > USG is not the only govt in history which has done something good about or > with UDHR. I'm sure in the latter part of the 20th century, some govts who > caught up with the whole idea might have used their clout or some leverage > with weaker but less HR-friendly governments (for instance, the kind of > govts that wouldn't mind opening the fire on their citizens/CS in the > streets --does that ring a bell still in the 21st century?) in order to > have them pay a little more regard to the HRs of their citizens. Hence, me > saying govts (the ones which are so willing), with the power or clout that > is only theirs, may also help "uphold" or respect HRs -- or whatever I > wrote along those lines that made you jump off your chair, MM. > > Sorry folks for the length of my response. It really is a tough thing to > fully and accurately express what one means (as to avoid misunderstanding) > while keeping it short, when the language in use doesn't soar from one's > guts, i.e not one's natural first language. Bearing with this is part of > the small price you have to pay for a relatively inclusive and diverse > forum, to whatever degree, the highest price being borne by the writer. So > are my explanations clear enough, MM, or should I put together a commercial > a la Christine O'Donnell (the "I am not a witch" tea-partier) in order to > claim "I am not a government idolater, nor am I an anti-techies"? > > mawaki > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> All >> >> It would be a mistake to let this discussion degenerate into >> categorizations of empty stakeholder abstractions: governments as >> "upholders of human rights" (cough!), technical community as good or bad, >> etc. This is one of the truly silly things about the decision the I* >> organizations made to label the proper approach to Internet governance as >> "the multistakeholder model." As if there were "the" single model (there >> isn't), as if multistakeholderism actually described IETF (it doesn't), as >> if the presence of multiple stakeholders in a process automatically means >> good, freedom and efficiency-enhancing governance (it doesn't). >> >> Talking about "techies" - either pro or con - is just not helpful at >> this point. Same goes for claims regarding "civil society." Better to talk >> about specific values and objectives and how VERY SPECIFIC institutional >> mechanisms contribute to them, or not. There is some legitimate space for >> concern about who is represented in meetings and decision making, and I >> very much do share Jeremy's concern about the I* organizations running away >> with the ball, but finger-pointing regarding stakeholder categories is >> pointless. >> >> A bit of a historical correction for you also, Mawaki. It was a world >> led by the _United States_ government that gave us the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights. Not a world led by "governments." We rammed it >> down everyone's throats, and anyway the formulation of and advocacy for >> rights comes from a vibrant civil society under certain kinds of >> constitutional regimes, not from states as states. The US had just won WW2, >> and had unparalleled hegemony over Europe, Japan and many other parts of >> the world. It never would have happened otherwise. I don't think that >> lesson has any clear relevance to current discussions regarding IG, but if >> you think it does, perhaps you can explain in more detail. >> >> --MM >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Mawaki Chango [ >> kichango at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:53 PM >> *To:* Internet Governance; McTim >> *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow >> lunchtime >> >> Thanks, Jeremy, for alerting us about what is going on with the >> "technical" community. >> Personally, I'm okay with moving the call for endorsement to 24hrs >> earlier --just as I agree with the need for more private/f2f strategizing. >> >> McTim, multistakeholder does not mean anti-governmentalism. Nor does it >> say the "technical community" takes over from government. It really means >> "on equal footing" etc., governments included, if you ask me. Furthermore, >> I do not think I have any track record for celebrating governments, but >> I'll say this. In some circumstances, governments may be evil, but it was >> also a world led by governments which gave us the Universal Declaration of >> Human Rights and related texts, which have served as formidable normative >> tools for social progress. And sometimes, some of them put a stake into >> seeing those norms upheld. >> >> Left to their own devices, techies don't necessarily have the best >> interest of the user at heart (I suspect Vint Cerf would agree with me >> since while opposing the notion that Internet is a HR, he suggested that >> designers could do a better job in making the technology more HR-friendly, >> so to speak, in short.) While they do a lot of wonderful things --there's >> no denying that, not of my part anyway-- techies cannot write a clean and >> accurate user guide for... users! It is my sense that they are mostly >> impressed with impressing their peers, as is often the case with minority >> groups of meritocrats. So yes, seeing "multistakeholderism" as the >> opportunity to shift from "government-centric" to "techno-centric" should >> be a matter of concern to CS --or to any plain citizen, for that matter. >> >> I'm just saying -- "on equal footing" my dear! >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> Jeremy, >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> wrote: >>> > I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting >>> that >>> > took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing >>> > power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will >>> create a >>> > "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of >>> reasserting the >>> > primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric" >>> > models. >>> >>> CS should not have a problem with that, we should embrace it as it >>> gives CS more clout than a Inter-gov model, no? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Oct 30 12:19:57 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:19:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <527131AD.4030802@wzb.eu> Am 29.10.2013 03:10, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): > At IGF, Glimpses Of Future IP Governance Overshadowed By Mass Surveillance > > Away from traditional free trade agreement negotiations with secret > chapters on stricter intellectual property protection, perceptions are > slowly evolving about the need to make IP systems work better. One of > 100+ sessions at the 8th United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > in Bali, Indonesia last week featured “intellectual property exchanges” > as marketplaces for knowledge. But IP policy did not take centre stage > and neither did other access topics in Bali, The MAG in its wisdom rejected at least two IPR related workshops. My workshop proposal addressed IPR enforcement and internet governance. If the MAG will reject in future a growing number of workshop proposals it should reconsider its evaluation method and be prepared to explain its choices. Jeanette which instead was > overshadowed by the recent revelations of mass surveillance by US > intelligence services. > > /More/ > > http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/10/28/at-igf-glimpses-of-future-ip-governance-overshadowed-by-mass-surveillance/#more-32555 > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Wed Oct 30 16:15:45 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:15:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9FAF4BD8-02E2-4138-ABE9-820369F48C86@catherine-roy.net> Hello Norbert, Please add my name as a signatory of the statement. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy www.catherine-roy.net > El 25/10/13 3:44, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > > [With IGC coordinator hat on] > > The statement text that has evolved from the recent discussions (both > on-list and on the ground here in Bali) is now online at > > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html > > as a sign-on statement. > > > At the present stage, this is not a formal statement of the IGC. In the > IGC we will, without putting ourselves under unreasonable time pressure, > conduct a consensus process that may lead to adoption of this text as a > statement of the IGC, or to adoption of a revised or altogether > different text as a statement of the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > <30FB7B6A-2AA1-4840-8F66-81D12C0EB54E[46].png> > <8CB2BB59-BDB6-45C8-A6F3-73173926A0FE[46].png> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Oct 30 18:48:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:48:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime In-Reply-To: References: <5D7625C2-5092-431B-BCDA-759EAD4B3226@uzh.ch> <20131024100314.GA2807@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1420b8da6f0.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> You wont have to defend yourself as I totally agree Unfortunately it is a common sort of attitude among a section or minority of civil society --srs (htc one x) On 30 October 2013 9:54:44 AM Mawaki Chango wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > I think what Bill is saying is that there appears to be a refusal to > > acknowledge the technical community as civil society or even > > multistakeholder in nature, so that any outreach from them is characterized > > as a power grab, and there appears to be a refusal to engage in their > > processes. > > > > I read the use of the phrase "power grab" (which I did not bring in the > discussion) as an individual's assessment --hence, inevitably subjective > somewhat-- of a *punctual* situation, not a characterization of everything > a given stakeholder group is or does in this setting. Once it was used to > characterize a behavior in a given context (and only in that context) the > notion can be discussed, assumptions can be made or implications drawn > based on its face value (after all the person making that assessment is not > what you might particularly call an outlier in this group), or conversely > it may be challenged --which is all good. That's part of the normal > discussion, without anyone claiming that this is the definitive > characterization of what a whole group of (necessarily diverse) human > beings is all about. > > So now leaving the "power grab" meme aside (for now), I never seriously got > into the discussion as to who is CS and who's not (I guess as a matter of > principle, I must be cautious using the term "never" if only because > computer memory has outpaced human memory in this day and age. But > seriously, I never spent time on that as far as I can remember.) The way I > see this --and please be mindful that this is not a theory or anything I > need or want to get universal agreement on-- is that every natural person > (as in the biological individual human beings) leaving among other human > beings is part of CS *unless*... Unless they willingly take on the role to > represent or be the agent of a non-natural person, whether it is the > government apparatus or a private corporation or any legally incorporated > collection of natural individuals (which raises the question of CS > organizations I'll return to below.) In this case, it is preferably up to > the individual to rally with the stakeholder group where his or her > principal (organization of affiliation) belongs. Or alternatively, other > people who feel the participation of any such individual(s) in CS processes > may skew the outcomes, presumably toward the interests of their principal > which are seen as not aligned with CS interests in the subject matter may > bring up objections. At this point I have no clear cut guidance to offer as > to how to handle objections and counter-objections of that kind. I just > have a sense that if a voluntary resolution cannot be reached, then it one > way or the other becomes a matter of common sense as well as the > plausibility of presumptions and claims made by all involved, in the view > of the public opinion. I guess what I am trying to say is that it will > always be difficult to have an authoritative procedure to resolve this in a > clean manner, if the parties are not willing to cooperate and be honest > with themselves about the difference that there might be between their > current motivations and the goals and interests of CS. > > I must immediately add that as we "practice" them, I agree that those > identities are mostly artificial (or at least circumstantial) and as a > result, they are inevitably shifting from a context to another for the same > individual. > > > > > > Civil society being as amorphous as it is, there is absolutely no bar to > > any caucus or combination of people forming with their own views and ideas > > - the problem lies in objecting to other such groups forming, and calling > > them power grabs. > > > > In my view, it is the prerogative of any such groups to form, and they'd do > so presumably whenever they have a distinct set of objectives or interests. > They are entitled to advocate for their views and simply get down to work > for their realization without being called "power grabs." I would assume it > would take more than that (like for instance, a deliberate attempt to shun > or overshadow other stakeholders) for anyone to call that power grab. > > > > In such a case, is it to be implied that other sections of civil society > > too are intent on their own such "power grabs" where they, not the people > > over in the other "power grab" call the shots and drive their ideology? > > > > Yes, no group has the monopoly of power grabs (reason why I rejected above > the notion that it was a characterization or labeling of a particular > stakeholder group as a whole.) CS may be subject to power grabs, too, as we > are diverse and any subset of CS may be tempted to overly influence the > process at the expense and sometimes at the exclusion of others. > > The notion of CS I have outlined above has not addressed the case of > "professional" and organized CS (through registered/incorporated legal > structures.) As organizations, they have their mission and their agenda, > and there might be plenty of private citizens around the world who might > not be interested by such mission and agenda or others may criticize them > for not using the right methods to achieve the good they claim, etc. On the > face value however, and using common sense, we do understand that there is > a fundamental difference between, say, Human Right Watch or Doctors Without > Borders or Bytes for All, etc. (my understanding of the latter being only > based on their name, so I might be wrong, but please stay on the bigger > picture), and, say, the International Association of Accountants or the > American Association of Banks (may not be the exact names, but you > understand my point... trade associations.) Maybe one way to put it is that > any individual/private citizen who finds herself in the kind of situation > the former type of organizations purport to improve may (I didn't say > "will") benefit from their action without the said individual having to pay > a fee or a due for that. Which is not to say they are not membership > organizations with due paying members. But their actions are neither > primarily nor exclusively motivated by the personal interests of their > members, nor are they carried out for solely and directly in the interest > of those individual members. So to the extent this information is > available, mission, values, interests, goals, objectives as well as actual > behaviors and actions matter in appreciating in every context what (or > rather whom) CS entails. Hence, as said in another thread, the importance > for IGC (or global CS in IG) to clearly formulate its mission/values/goals > and its interests, etc. > > In sum, CS at least in a global context such as this one is a broad notion > that must have room for many inevitably diverse actors, and be open enough > for people to be able to go and come based on what matters to them at a > given point in time. At the very least, I'd say it includes the following: > individuals as private citizens (representing no other than themselves), > organized CS as characterized above and individuals acting on their behalf, > and other sub-culture groups (to mean a specialized subset, not anything > secondary) such as academia and technical community. However, there will be > times and contexts where those specialized subsets may have a distinctive > enough identity (based on their goals and interests, etc.) to justify they > stand as a distinct stakeholder group in their own right. > > I'd hope that, going forward and until further notice, the above have > precedence on anything else one might interpret that I mean to say when > discussing about Internet stakeholders, their relationship and their > relevance from CS perspective, etc. Again, it is just my own pragmatic > approach to the question, which is not informed by theory or research. So > yeah, I might have said one or two things that someone would find > inaccurate in which case I would be glad to be enlightened. But please > don't have me to have to come up here and defend myself ;-) My 2 cents, and > only that. > > Mawaki > > > > > > That doesn't sound terribly conducive to any sort of consensus > > > > -suresh > > > > Mawaki Chango [24/10/13 09:50 +0000]: > > > > Hi, > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:24 AM, McTim wrote: > >> > >> Bill, > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Drake > >>> wrote: > >>> > Hi > >>> > > >>> > Despite Chris' wording, I don't view this effort as a power grab, a > >>> framing > >>> > that seems to suggest that there's fixed pie of power (?) that one > >>> group > >>> > wishes to take at the expense of others. Fadi went to Dilma, they > >>> talked > >>> > and agreed to hold a multistakeholder meeting with yet to be fully > >>> agreed > >>> > goals, and he came to the people he knows and said ok we need to get > >>> > organized and have an open coalition that goes beyond us to include > >>> people > >>> > who favor MS processes even if they have different ideas of the > >>> desirable > >>> > end states. Hence the meeting was meeting was open and you were there > >>> to > >>> > voice your concerns. If you decide you don't want to coordinate with > >>> the > >>> > people involved in that effort you can try to organize your own > >>> relationship > >>> > to the Brazil meeting. But surely that doesn't mean that those who do > >>> > shouldn't be able to. > >>> > >>> Sums it up nicely. > >>> > >>> > > >>> > Since "their" meeting was open and "we" were invited to get involved, > >>> why do > >>> > "we" need to have a private meeting from which "they" are excluded? > >>> > >>> good question! > >>> > >>> > >> Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about > >> this without CS being involved? And you know that for certain? > >> I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting > >> "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past > >> the > >> initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint > >> meetings with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have > >> different ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But > >> frankly, you sound like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct > >> "relationship to the Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the > >> most desirable and the latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't > >> we do both, especially if there remain issues on which the objectives of > >> CS > >> and those of I* orgs are not fully aligned? > >> > >> And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil > >> meeting" > >> as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but > >> since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would > >> ask. > >> > >> > >> > >>> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist". Nor did I say the > >>> "technical community" should take over from governments. > >>> > >>> > >> McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But > >> what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the > >> first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can > >> fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without > >> linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there > >> are direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice > >> them > >> literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3 > >> or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't > >> question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and > >> just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to > >> start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my > >> response to your question. And if his rendition is accurate, then such > >> state of affairs has implications that you did not need to state > >> explicitly. By asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are > >> indicating that you agreed with such state of affairs. In sum, if such (as > >> described by Jeremy) is the state of affairs and if you agree with that > >> (as > >> implied by your question), then my response to you was warranted. Note > >> that > >> the said response is more of a commentary on the said state of affairs > >> than > >> it is about what you personally think ultimately --in case the two are > >> different. > >> > >> Cheers! > >> > >> Mawaki > >> > >> > >> > >>> I think we need to realise that governments make the laws and > >>> regulations that the Internet operates under in each country, in > >>> addition to the "Geneva-style" Internet Governance processes. I'm not > >>> willing to hand them any more decision making ability when I can > >>> instead have CS play a significant role in multi-equal processes. > >>> > >>> I think it is poor strategy and poor form for us to over-react. > >>> Shouldn't we be strongly supportive of grass-roots coalitions? > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> > > ______________________________**______________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 31 04:10:55 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:10:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <527131AD.4030802@wzb.eu> References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <527131AD.4030802@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > The MAG in its wisdom rejected at least two IPR related workshops. My workshop proposal addressed IPR enforcement and internet governance. I was puzzled by this but unable to get real clarity on the rankings done. It may be that there remains an aversion in some circles to discussing intellectual property issues in the IGF, which would be a pity. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 31 05:02:16 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:02:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <527131AD.4030802@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <0A04E20E-F923-4B38-8FB4-E31508BDB574@glocom.ac.jp> Did the MAG discuss the evaluation process and how to score? I know there were general baskets (diversity, relevance etc) but need consistency in responses. Example: how do you decide relevance, was there an agreed standard, was it discussed? BTW, a colleague at his first IGF found the number of tracks perfectly manageable. I sat in on most of the main sessions, they were poorly attended. The surveillance session the last day was OK, even that fewer than you'd expect given the importance of the topic, and civil society participation was surprisingly weak, just a few questions/comments. Most of the transcripts are now online and video on YouTube, see IGF channel These were uploaded just about immediately after the session had ended, not sure that was well known. Adam On Oct 31, 2013, at 5:10 PM, William Drake wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> The MAG in its wisdom rejected at least two IPR related workshops. My workshop proposal addressed IPR enforcement and internet governance. > > I was puzzled by this but unable to get real clarity on the rankings done. It may be that there remains an aversion in some circles to discussing intellectual property issues in the IGF, which would be a pity. > > Bill > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Oct 31 05:07:30 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:07:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <0A04E20E-F923-4B38-8FB4-E31508BDB574@glocom.ac.jp> References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <527131AD.4030802@wzb.eu> <0A04E20E-F923-4B38-8FB4-E31508BDB574@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52721DD2.4030809@ciroap.org> On 31/10/13 17:02, Adam Peake wrote: > Most of the transcripts are now online At least one of them has the wrong link. The correct link for "Focus session on principles of multistakeholder cooperation" is: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-transcripts/1402-focus-session-principles-of-multistakeholder-cooperation -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 31 05:22:49 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:22:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52721DD2.4030809@ciroap.org> References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <527131AD.4030802@wzb.eu> <0A04E20E-F923-4B38-8FB4-E31508BDB574@glocom.ac.jp> <52721DD2.4030809@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5A42FF85-3CA2-4B75-92FC-B7B3AEC592A0@glocom.ac.jp> Thanks Jeremy. If anyone sees errors like this please let IGF Forum know. Adam On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 31/10/13 17:02, Adam Peake wrote: >> Most of the transcripts are now online > > At least one of them has the wrong link. The correct link for "Focus session on principles of multistakeholder cooperation" is: > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-transcripts/1402-focus-session-principles-of-multistakeholder-cooperation > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 31 05:23:47 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:23:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance Message-ID: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> Dear all In view of next year's Internet governance related summit in Brazil, I propose that wee start a serious strategic discussion on what are the main civil society objectives in Internet governance. I view this as a necessary foundation for then being able to rationally discuss what to push for in regard to the agenda and topical breadth of the summit. So: What should, in your view, our main objectives be? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 31 05:52:01 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:52:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> Message-ID: <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Norbert, This is a good idea, but, first what do we know about the objectives of the Brazilian government, have they stated what there goals are? Is there agreement on what the intent of the Summit is? Or is it a complete blank slate. Before Bali we had a very brief statement from Brazil, I think in the form of a news article, and short video of Fadi Chehade talking about an idea for a summit. What do we believe we know now after a week of various meetings and statements in Bali? Thanks, Adam On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all > > In view of next year's Internet governance related summit in Brazil, I > propose that wee start a serious strategic discussion on what are the > main civil society objectives in Internet governance. > > I view this as a necessary foundation for then being able to rationally > discuss what to push for in regard to the agenda and topical breadth of > the summit. > > So: What should, in your view, our main objectives be? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 31 05:53:19 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:53:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <0A04E20E-F923-4B38-8FB4-E31508BDB574@glocom.ac.jp> References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <527131AD.4030802@wzb.eu> <0A04E20E-F923-4B38-8FB4-E31508BDB574@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi Adam On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Did the MAG discuss the evaluation process and how to score? I know there were general baskets (diversity, relevance etc) but need consistency in responses. Example: how do you decide relevance, was there an agreed standard, was it discussed? As I recall there were several stages. First, after the Feb. consultation, a group of us got together under the baton of Mervi Kultamaa (govt. of Finland) and developed a couple page proposal with detailed criteria for evaluation. This included such innovations as saying the workshops had to actually be about Internet governance, have multiple perspectives, demographic diversity, etc. I think there was brief discussion on the MAG list with expressions of support but nothing too probing or sustained. Second, the secretariat later put up a form for workshop submissions that listed some of what we'd suggested, but not everything (unclear why). Members then ranked proposals and it turned out (in the view of many) that we were interpreting, applying, and balancing between the listed criteria differently. So there was a lot of discussion on how to recalibrate, treat different categories, handle the resulting numerical rankings, deal with organizers who submitted 10-18 separate proposals, etc. Third, we had a May meeting where the MAG went off into thematic break out groups to review workshops divided up by the main categories, and several of these groups came back to plenary and reported that they had added back in workshops that had fallen below the agreed numerical threshold (i.e. were rejected by the full MAG), for various reasons. There were multiple expressions of disquiet about this and other aspects of the process, as is reflected in the public transcript. There were also instances of lobbying for proposals, unfortunate. Under the difficult circumstances of a very compressed schedule, everyone was doing their best to get this right, but we didn't all view what was right in the same way. The eventual outcome was generally not bad and eventually most people I spoke with in Bali were largely happy with the quality of workshops selected, but of course the process was not pretty and there were some contestable rejections. Subsequent to the May meeting, Fiona Alexander (govt. of US) offered to spearhead a new effort to sort out clear evaluation criteria, but this was launched pre-Bali when people were preoccupied so it seemed to engender some expressions of support but no broad group discussion. Hopefully we will return to the matter in January-February when people have more bandwidth and before the next F2F MAG meeting to probe deeper and get a stronger shared understanding of just how we're doing this next time, resulting in clearer than ever guidelines to organizers and evaluators alike. Hopefully too the "preliminary proposals" experiment will not be repeated. > > BTW, a colleague at his first IGF found the number of tracks perfectly manageable. > > I sat in on most of the main sessions, they were poorly attended. The surveillance session the last day was OK, even that fewer than you'd expect given the importance of the topic, and civil society participation was surprisingly weak, just a few questions/comments. I think there is a real question about what to do with the 'focus' sessions. Either we find new and enticing formats like debates, or we should consider dumping them. To the extent they're run like workshops, but peopled by the MAG rather than bottom up workshop organizers, it's not obvious what their distinctive added value is anymore. > > Most of the transcripts are now online and video on YouTube, see IGF channel These were uploaded just about immediately after the session had ended, not sure that was well known. Define most. I was involved in 7 workshops, 1 of which is online. Video quality seems a bit variable. Things to work on. I assume the secretariat folks are all exhausted so maybe a little patience is merited. Bill > > Adam > > > On Oct 31, 2013, at 5:10 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> >> On Oct 30, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>> The MAG in its wisdom rejected at least two IPR related workshops. My workshop proposal addressed IPR enforcement and internet governance. >> >> I was puzzled by this but unable to get real clarity on the rankings done. It may be that there remains an aversion in some circles to discussing intellectual property issues in the IGF, which would be a pity. >> >> Bill >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 31 06:17:49 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 03:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <1383214669.725.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I agree with Norbert Proposal.  Adam, I would like to suggest that we should locate some Brazilian CS representatives to help in preparation IGC strategy aligned with their objectives and/or to support them, instead of looking for the agenda and goals set by the Brazilian government. However just for the confirmation of Summit, we may seek their response. Thanks, Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Adam Peake >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2013, 14:52 >Subject: Re: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance > > >Hi Norbert, > >This is a good idea, but, first what do we know about the objectives of the Brazilian government, have they stated what there goals are?  Is there agreement on what the intent of the Summit is?  Or is it a complete blank slate. > >Before Bali we had a very brief statement from Brazil, I think in the form of a news article, and short video of Fadi Chehade talking about an idea for a summit.  What do we believe we know now after a week of various meetings and statements in Bali?  > >Thanks, > >Adam > > > >On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> In view of next year's Internet governance related summit in Brazil, I >> propose that wee start a serious strategic discussion on what are the >> main civil society objectives in Internet governance. >> >> I view this as a necessary foundation for then being able to rationally >> discuss what to push for in regard to the agenda and topical breadth of >> the summit. >> >> So: What should, in your view, our main objectives be? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 31 06:23:02 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:23:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <527131AD.4030802@wzb.eu> <0A04E20E-F923-4B38-8FB4-E31508BDB574@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Thanks Bill. Helpful explanation. Transcripts: they arrive from the scribe team a couple of hours after the session/workshop as a raw file, mistakes of all kinds. These are cleaned up, names added where they can be etc, and posted. This is much easier for the main/focus sessions. Transcription is done remote, so quality of the Internet connection matters. Video was I believe a direct feed to YouTube (no clue how it worked, but an innovation for this year.) Now we're away from Bali the burden is on the much smaller secretariat... and they must be exhausted. It's a large and complex conference for a very small core team (I am not part of the core group.) I hope the MAG will send a clear message that the secretariat must be strengthen (again, I don't mean me.) Basically the IGF is run by three people: And the MAG and many volunteers of course, but three core people. A quite stunning achievement. Adam On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:53 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Adam > > On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Did the MAG discuss the evaluation process and how to score? I know there were general baskets (diversity, relevance etc) but need consistency in responses. Example: how do you decide relevance, was there an agreed standard, was it discussed? > > As I recall there were several stages. First, after the Feb. consultation, a group of us got together under the baton of Mervi Kultamaa (govt. of Finland) and developed a couple page proposal with detailed criteria for evaluation. This included such innovations as saying the workshops had to actually be about Internet governance, have multiple perspectives, demographic diversity, etc. I think there was brief discussion on the MAG list with expressions of support but nothing too probing or sustained. Second, the secretariat later put up a form for workshop submissions that listed some of what we'd suggested, but not everything (unclear why). Members then ranked proposals and it turned out (in the view of many) that we were interpreting, applying, and balancing between the listed criteria differently. So there was a lot of discussion on how to recalibrate, treat different categories, handle the resulting numerical rankings, deal with organizers who submitted 10-18 separate proposals, etc. Third, we had a May meeting where the MAG went off into thematic break out groups to review workshops divided up by the main categories, and several of these groups came back to plenary and reported that they had added back in workshops that had fallen below the agreed numerical threshold (i.e. were rejected by the full MAG), for various reasons. There were multiple expressions of disquiet about this and other aspects of the process, as is reflected in the public transcript. There were also instances of lobbying for proposals, unfortunate. Under the difficult circumstances of a very compressed schedule, everyone was doing their best to get this right, but we didn't all view what was right in the same way. The eventual outcome was generally not bad and eventually most people I spoke with in Bali were largely happy with the quality of workshops selected, but of course the process was not pretty and there were some contestable rejections. > > Subsequent to the May meeting, Fiona Alexander (govt. of US) offered to spearhead a new effort to sort out clear evaluation criteria, but this was launched pre-Bali when people were preoccupied so it seemed to engender some expressions of support but no broad group discussion. Hopefully we will return to the matter in January-February when people have more bandwidth and before the next F2F MAG meeting to probe deeper and get a stronger shared understanding of just how we're doing this next time, resulting in clearer than ever guidelines to organizers and evaluators alike. Hopefully too the "preliminary proposals" experiment will not be repeated. > >> >> BTW, a colleague at his first IGF found the number of tracks perfectly manageable. >> >> I sat in on most of the main sessions, they were poorly attended. The surveillance session the last day was OK, even that fewer than you'd expect given the importance of the topic, and civil society participation was surprisingly weak, just a few questions/comments. > > I think there is a real question about what to do with the 'focus' sessions. Either we find new and enticing formats like debates, or we should consider dumping them. To the extent they're run like workshops, but peopled by the MAG rather than bottom up workshop organizers, it's not obvious what their distinctive added value is anymore. >> >> Most of the transcripts are now online and video on YouTube, see IGF channel These were uploaded just about immediately after the session had ended, not sure that was well known. > > Define most. I was involved in 7 workshops, 1 of which is online. Video quality seems a bit variable. Things to work on. I assume the secretariat folks are all exhausted so maybe a little patience is merited. > > Bill >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Oct 31, 2013, at 5:10 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> >>> On Oct 30, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>>> The MAG in its wisdom rejected at least two IPR related workshops. My workshop proposal addressed IPR enforcement and internet governance. >>> >>> I was puzzled by this but unable to get real clarity on the rankings done. It may be that there remains an aversion in some circles to discussing intellectual property issues in the IGF, which would be a pity. >>> >>> Bill >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Oct 31 06:40:07 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:40:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <87F14B17-8B4D-4A68-848D-42A014AF4B03@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332139@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <527131AD.4030802@wzb.eu> <0A04E20E-F923-4B38-8FB4-E31508BDB574@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Oct 31, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > I hope the MAG will send a clear message that the secretariat must be strengthen (again, I don't mean me.) Pity, I was going to tell the MAG I think you need to be strengthened :-) Small problem: whenever anyone tries to raise larger governance of the IGF issues that imply MAG should be doing anything more than programming a meeting, there are objections. WGIGF notwithstanding. But sure we can try. BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 31 06:53:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:53:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> Adam Peake wrote: > This is a good idea, but, first what do we know about the objectives > of the Brazilian government, have they stated what there goals are? > Is there agreement on what the intent of the Summit is? Or is it a > complete blank slate. I have come home from Bali with the impression that the precise scope and agenda of the summit is still very much in flux, and will likely remain so for long enough that we have a chance to significantly influence it, provided we manage to figure our reasonably quickly what are, from our perspectives, the really important and urgent topics. The Brazilian government explicitly wants to be inclusive of other stakeholders, including civil society, in regard to all aspects of the summit, including the agenda setting process. In my view, the main constraints are that the time until the planned summit is relatively short, and that it should be considered part of the fundamental social contract underlying this summit that the Internet related issues raised in Dilma Rousseff's speech at the UN General Assembly [1], which has set this whole process in motion, will need to be centrally addressed. [1] http://www.voltairenet.org/article180382.html In regard to the latter point: I am aware that different views have been expressed in Bali, sometimes quite prominently. I am nevertheless of the opinion that any attempt to change the agenda of the summit into something entirely different from what that UN GA speech was about is not only undesirable but also unrealistic. So I would say that for example a reform of ICANN's model of accountability/oversight could be part of the agenda of the summit, but only if this is done in the context of a broader “Internet governance architecture” theme that also addresses the creation of a mechanism to end the large-scale global privacy violations committed by the NSA. Of course there will be no shortage of voices that will aim to distract from this point that the Brazilian government is particularly interested in. I don't expect such distraction tactics to be successful. The Brazilians are no fools. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 31 07:20:35 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:20:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> Message-ID: <856BF77A-7A05-4C6C-93F3-2051534CCFF8@glocom.ac.jp> Thanks Norbert, some comments below. On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > >> This is a good idea, but, first what do we know about the objectives >> of the Brazilian government, have they stated what there goals are? >> Is there agreement on what the intent of the Summit is? Or is it a >> complete blank slate. > > I have come home from Bali with the impression that the precise scope > and agenda of the summit is still very much in flux, and will likely > remain so for long enough that we have a chance to significantly > influence it, provided we manage to figure our reasonably quickly what > are, from our perspectives, the really important and urgent topics. > > The Brazilian government explicitly wants to be inclusive of other > stakeholders, including civil society, in regard to all aspects of > the summit, including the agenda setting process. > So we should think about the modalities for that. In one of the focus sessions the Brazilian Ambassador said when they used the word Summit they really did mean a *Summit*, i.e. high level with enough authority to make decisions (light paraphrasing of his words). Is this the impression everyone got from meetings with the Brazilian delegation and other stakeholders? Such Summits are not easy for CS, we don't have ministers, CEOs, etc that can slip easily into representative roles (and can sense the shoving for those CS seats begin :-) ) We have heard about some coalition of stakeholders that will work on ideas for the summit, what is this, can someone explain (and others confirm.) Is it for modalities of participation? For issues on the summit agenda? For outcomes and what comes after May in Brazil? (or all and more?) > In my view, the main constraints are that the time until the planned > summit is relatively short, and that it should be considered part of the > fundamental social contract underlying this summit that the Internet > related issues raised in Dilma Rousseff's speech at the UN General > Assembly [1], which has set this whole process in motion, will need > to be centrally addressed. > [1] http://www.voltairenet.org/article180382.html > At the UN GA, her principles were: 1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights. 2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector. 3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. 4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values. 5. Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes. And in email to another list Bill Drake wrote: > > To decode for people not in the Bali "coalition" pow wow on Sunday, these are the 'deliverables' Fadi says Pres. Rousseff would like something on in Brazil, and they seem to mean a) an agreement at the level of guiding principles, sort of ye ole framework convention concept; b) institutional frameworks for CIR and globalization of the USG functions; and c) potentially some sort of new decision making mechanism for 'orphaned' IG issues that lack proper institutional homes. Which, of course, could have been said more directly rather than having generic terms stand in for specific initiatives, but perhaps that'd have been too concrete and 'sensitive' at this stage. > > Bill > _______________________________________________ So this is a good start. If we agree on these interpretations. Also worth noting that the Brazilian Ambassador said when President Rousseff said multilateral she meant multistakeholder: the summit would be multistakeholder, Internet governance should be multistakeholder. I hope that's consistent with other comments made in all the side meetings. Important this is known and agreed by all, particularly by governments, who might be encouraged to select delegations with active participation of all stakeholders. Best, Adam > In regard to the latter point: I am aware that different views have > been expressed in Bali, sometimes quite prominently. I am nevertheless > of the opinion that any attempt to change the agenda of the summit into > something entirely different from what that UN GA speech was about is > not only undesirable but also unrealistic. > > So I would say that for example a reform of ICANN's model of > accountability/oversight could be part of the agenda of the summit, > but only if this is done in the context of a broader “Internet > governance architecture” theme that also addresses the creation > of a mechanism to end the large-scale global privacy violations > committed by the NSA. Of course there will be no shortage of voices > that will aim to distract from this point that the Brazilian government > is particularly interested in. I don't expect such distraction tactics > to be successful. The Brazilians are no fools. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 31 07:55:59 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:55:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <856BF77A-7A05-4C6C-93F3-2051534CCFF8@glocom.ac.jp> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> <856BF77A-7A05-4C6C-93F3-2051534CCFF8@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <20131031125559.3b9cdf72@quill> Adam Peake wrote: > So we should think about the modalities for that. In one of the > focus sessions the Brazilian Ambassador said when they used the word > Summit they really did mean a *Summit*, i.e. high level with enough > authority to make decisions (light paraphrasing of his words). Is > this the impression everyone got from meetings with the Brazilian > delegation and other stakeholders? My impression is that the Brazilian delegation has been consistently speaking of a summit, while stakeholders who are not comfortable with governments having a strong role in Internet governance related decision making have preferred to use a different terminology. The whole thing being in flux as much as it is, this use of a different terminology has probably been influenced by an intention to try to minimize governmental influence on the Internet. > Such Summits are not easy for CS, we don't have ministers, CEOs, etc > that can slip easily into representative roles (and can sense the > shoving for those CS seats begin :-) ) > > We have heard about some coalition of stakeholders that will work on > ideas for the summit, what is this, can someone explain (and others > confirm.) Is it for modalities of participation? For issues on the > summit agenda? For outcomes and what comes after May in Brazil? (or > all and more?) At least one such group is indeed in the process of forming itself, or at least trying to do so. I'm attaching the best information that I have available, which is the meeting report from a meeting on Friday that has been circulated on the BestBits list. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: coalition:dialogue_meeting.doc Type: application/vnd.ms-word Size: 21504 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 08:14:52 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:14:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > So I would say that for example a reform of ICANN's model of > accountability/oversight could be part of the agenda of the summit, > but only if this is done in the context of a broader “Internet > governance architecture” theme that also addresses the creation > of a mechanism to end the large-scale global privacy violations > committed by the NSA. The only possible mechanism to do this is called strong encryption. To think that governments will agree at a "Summit" (called for by a US non-profit and one gov't) to stop spying on their own people (and each others) seems fairly naive. Gov't will express outrage in public, but negotiating a stop to it in a UN summit with many years of prep work and negotiations would be a real stretch for them. In a non-UN "summit" I think that is really unrealistic. Even if there was a UN Cyber Surveillance Convention that had real sanctions against violators, gov't would just be more careful about being caught. The practice isn't going to stop (unfortunately). Of course there will be no shortage of voices > that will aim to distract from this point that the Brazilian government > is particularly interested in. I don't expect such distraction tactics > to be successful. The Brazilians are no fools. Correct. However, the press about their surveillance plans for the World Cup seem to suggest that even they wouldn't sign an int'l treaty limiting their ability to monitor communications. Well they might sign it, but violate it anyway, as would many nation states IMHO. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 31 08:18:26 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:18:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: <20131031125559.3b9cdf72@quill> References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> <856BF77A-7A05-4C6C-93F3-2051534CCFF8@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031125559.3b9cdf72@quill> Message-ID: <9316B641-1958-49BE-B92F-3EFE058D52A0@glocom.ac.jp> On Oct 31, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > >> So we should think about the modalities for that. In one of the >> focus sessions the Brazilian Ambassador said when they used the word >> Summit they really did mean a *Summit*, i.e. high level with enough >> authority to make decisions (light paraphrasing of his words). Is >> this the impression everyone got from meetings with the Brazilian >> delegation and other stakeholders? > > My impression is that the Brazilian delegation has been consistently > speaking of a summit, while stakeholders who are not comfortable with > governments having a strong role in Internet governance related > decision making have preferred to use a different terminology. Thanks Norbert. This kind of thing is important. In the emerging issues session (transcript ) Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho said: [quote] I was referring before to the kind of misunderstandings that sometimes occur, and the President has termed this meeting as a "Summit," and it must be understood that from the point of view of Government, what we are aiming at is at a very high level event that would wishfully be able to make kind of decision that could impact on the work we are doing. So this is the meaning of saying a "Summit." It should not be interpreted as meaning it's something exclusively for Governments. I think this is the kind of conceptual difference that sometimes must be spelled out. When we say" Summit, "we mean a meeting that will be   will have authority enough to make decisions. And at the same time, the President clearly also spelled out that she would expect Civil Society, private society, all stakeholders to be represented, and I would dare to say on an equal level as regard any decision making process that might be   might take place at that point, which we aim of course at some kind of consensus. [end quote] "misunderstandings", right. So we have the Brazilian Ambassador saying one thing and another interpretation going around. Which is correct? Not a great start if we are working to contribute/design a different kind of meeting. I understand Brazil wants to expand the "ownership" of the summit and is rumored to be talking to other governments to do that. That's important, if correct and is being successful. Amb, Fonseca also makes clear in the emerging issues session that they see the Summit as a follow-up to President Rousseff UN GA speech. As you said. > The > whole thing being in flux as much as it is, this use of a different > terminology has probably been influenced by an intention to try to > minimize governmental influence on the Internet. > I would very much like to see an outcome as less government not more. >> Such Summits are not easy for CS, we don't have ministers, CEOs, etc >> that can slip easily into representative roles (and can sense the >> shoving for those CS seats begin :-) ) >> >> We have heard about some coalition of stakeholders that will work on >> ideas for the summit, what is this, can someone explain (and others >> confirm.) Is it for modalities of participation? For issues on the >> summit agenda? For outcomes and what comes after May in Brazil? (or >> all and more?) > > At least one such group is indeed in the process of forming itself, or > at least trying to do so. I'm attaching the best information that I have > available, which is the meeting report from a meeting on Friday that > has been circulated on the BestBits list. > Thanks. Looks more like the Brazil coordinators, good. But if bestbits is taking on such tasks it really does need to be more transparent -- ok to use small groups to draft documents, but not to design process and representation. Perhaps Jeremy could explain how bestbits works and what its doing. Best, Adam > Greetings, > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Thu Oct 31 08:20:52 2013 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:20:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52721DD2.4030809@ciroap.org> Message-ID: While the transcripts are of undoubtedly high value and are an important outcome from these processes, they are not to be quoted without first checking what really happened by watching the video. As usual, the transcripts are packed with errors. Never read the transcript and assume you have been properly informed. They should be read in concert with watching the video of each panel you are interested in. While most of the words typed on the page are correct, many here and there throughout are not. Peoples' names are often mangled, so at times you do not even know who is speaking, and there are many misbegotten words here and there that can completely flip the true meaning of the conversation. I have spent many years spent following IGF, sometimes remotely, while reporting about it by watching the video AND checking the transcripts. They are often misleading. Best, Janna Anderson Elon University From: Jeremy Malcolm > Organization: Consumers International Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Thursday, October 31, 2013 5:07 AM To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholders wrangle over the Brazil Summit on Internet Governance On 31/10/13 17:02, Adam Peake wrote: Most of the transcripts are now online At least one of them has the wrong link. The correct link for "Focus session on principles of multistakeholder cooperation" is: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-transcripts/1402-focus-session-principles-of-multistakeholder-cooperation -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 31 08:23:12 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:23:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Re: Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20131026054131.772dd05a@swan.bollow.ch> References: <20131026054131.772dd05a@swan.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20131031132312.518b74f1@quill> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:41:31 +0200 I wrote: > Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > If we dont pay attention and leave "the implicit" > > takes the decision for us then global > > multistakeholderism is conducted de facto in English, > > and only that way. As a consequence, we will > > propose a scheme that, compared to the norm of International > > organizations (that so many fear to take as an option and > > consider an obsolete model) will be a clear regression. > > Yes, this is an important point. > > While we cannot reasonably re-open the statement at > http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html after so many have endorsed it > already, we should keep this in mind for future statements. > > Also this point could be explicitly mentioned in the text of the IGC > decision endorsing the statement, for example as follows: > > The IGC endorses the Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet > Governance Summit in Brazil at http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html and > notes in addition that the needed Internet governance architecture > as per the first bullet point must allow for full and equal > participation in the policy development processes in a variety of > languages including the six UN languages. > > This is an informal draft text which can be freely edited at > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/sign-on-endorse-plus [with IGC coordinator hat on] There hasn't yet been further discussion on this, and I also note that the above posting was buried in a long thread, with no explicit “decision making process” (“BMP}”) marker, hence I'm reposting this now with such a marker. I expect to post a formal consensus call in a couple of days; since we're not under strong time pressure here, that consensus call will run for at least 72 hours. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 09:54:29 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:54:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] DMP} Re: Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20131031132312.518b74f1@quill> References: <20131026054131.772dd05a@swan.bollow.ch> <20131031132312.518b74f1@quill> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:41:31 +0200 I wrote: > >> >> Also this point could be explicitly mentioned in the text of the IGC >> decision endorsing the statement, for example as follows: >> >> The IGC endorses the Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet >> Governance Summit in Brazil at http://igcaucus.org/sign-on.html and >> notes in addition that the needed Internet governance architecture >> as per the first bullet point must allow for full and equal >> participation in the policy development processes in a variety of >> languages including the six UN languages. >> >> This is an informal draft text which can be freely edited at >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/sign-on-endorse-plus > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > There hasn't yet been further discussion on this, and I also note that > the above posting was buried in a long thread, with no explicit > “decision making process” (“BMP}”) marker, hence I'm reposting this > now with such a marker. I expect to post a formal consensus call in a > couple of days; since we're not under strong time pressure here, that > consensus call will run for at least 72 hours. So we are not actually making a statement, we are words-mithing our sign on to a statement, and adding a language requirement to our sign on? I have some issues with the following 2 bullet points: "A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate." Why would we as CS want to link a fully inclusive process (IGF) to a non-inclusive process? What kind of linkage and why? "The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs." Who would "action" these potential outputs and how? I wouldn't want IGC to sign on to this before some clarity is given on the above. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 31 11:10:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:10:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Re: Sign-On Statement regarding the 2014 Internet Governance Summit in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <20131026054131.772dd05a@swan.bollow.ch> <20131031132312.518b74f1@quill> Message-ID: <20131031161050.614acf74@quill> McTim wrote: > So we are not actually making a statement, we are words-mithing our > sign on to a statement, and adding a language requirement to our sign > on? As long as the only change request to the statement text that came out of what I've called a "stumbling forward" process in Bali was the request to add something about the language issue, I thought that doing a sign-on with mention of an additional point would meet the need. But we can also draft an entirely new statement. Or edit the text of the sign-on statement in any way we wish. > I have some issues with the following 2 bullet points: > > "A strengthened Internet Governance Forum could play a role in the > future Internet governance arrangements to be discussed at the event, > and it should be linked with the CSTD WGEC process as appropriate." > > Why would we as CS want to link a fully inclusive process (IGF) to a > non-inclusive process? The intended meaning (I say that on the basis of the oral drafting history - I was in the room when this terribly unclear language came into existence) of that bullet point is that the "it" should be taken as referring to "the event". So the bullet is not intended to be read as talking about linking IGF and WGEC. Rather, this bullet point is intended to say two things: 1. In regard to the future Internet governance arrangements: A strengthened IGF could be part of those arrangements. 2. The Brazil summit should not engage in uncoordinated duplication of activities of the CSTD WGEC process. (I will agree immediately with anyone who suggests that it would be better to address these two things in two separate bullet points.) > "The event should extend beyond good will speeches or presentations of > good intentions and seek to produce actionable outputs." > > Who would "action" these potential outputs and how? I suppose this would very much depend on the topic of those outputs. For example, for the "internationalization of ICANN" topic, I'd expect ICANN itself to be the primary actor. For a hypothetical topic of "public education on how to protect one's privacy in email communication", the primary actors would be governments (in their role as custodians of public education) as well as publishers of educational resources, etc. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 31 11:21:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:21:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] IETF sets out to PRISM-proof the Net In-Reply-To: <7AB7075A-95F6-4D1B-9CF5-2B1281B6EA8F@warpspeed.com> References: <7AB7075A-95F6-4D1B-9CF5-2B1281B6EA8F@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <016b01ced64c$e7fc4010$b7f4c030$@gmail.com> From: Richard Forno Subject: IETF sets out to PRISM-proof the Net Date: October 31, 2013 at 8:48:34 AM EDT To: Infowarrior List Cc: Dave Farber In response to NSA revelations, the internet’s engineers set out to PRISM-proof the net Published on : 26 October 2013 - 12:25pm | By Julie Blussé (CC) Greatly disturbed by the recent revelations of mass internet surveillance, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) have announced plans to ramp up online security. You may never have heard of them, but the IETF are the creators and engineers of the internet’s architecture. Is there a technical solution to the problem of mass surveillance? For the IETF, Edward Snowden’s revelations were “a wake-up call,” said Jari Arkko, the task force’s chair. Arkko spoke at this week’s UN-initiated Internet Governance Forum in Bali, Indonesia. Surprised by the scale and tactics of surveillance, Arkko stated the engineers are “looking at technical changes that will raise the bar for monitoring.” “Perhaps the notion that internet is by default insecure needs to change,” he said. The IETF’s will is there, and Arkko believes significant technical fixes “just might be possible.” Technical, not political The engineers of the IETF keep a low profile, but they have been crucial to creating and setting the standards on which the internet was built, ever since its birth in 1969. They have developed email, instant messaging, and many protocols that hide behind acronyms that sound familiar yet mysterious to most Internet users, like HTTP and TCP/IP. As the internet evolved from an academic project into a global network, the role governments and companies played in how it functions grew dramatically. But the IETF maintained its well-respected role, thanks in part to its fervently apolitical stance and focus on technical issues. That focus remains in the current plans to make the internet more resistant to mass surveillance, Arkko emphasised in an interview with RNW: “This is a technical, not a political decision.” In his speech, Arkko chose his words carefully as he addressed an audience comprising representatives from governments that perpetrate the same mass-surveillance he hopes to curtail. “I do not think we should react to specific cases,” Arkko stated during the forum’s opening sessions. “But our commerce, business and personal communications are all depending on the internet technology being secure and trusted.” More, new and better security Ideas about how the internet might be secured against mass surveillance are currently discussed over the IETF’s publicly accessible mailing lists, to which anyone can subscribe and contribute. While nothing is set in stone yet, Arkko sketched out a few of the IETF’s ideas in his public address. Firstly, the IETF wants to eventually apply encryption to all web traffic. “Today, security only gets switched on for certain services like banking,” Arkko explained, referring to IETF-developed standards like SSL – the little lock that appears in the upper left corner of your browser to secure online purchases. “If we work hard, we can make [the entire internet] secure by default.” To this end, the IETF might make encryption mandatory for HTTP 2.0, a new version of the basic web protocol. Secondly, the IETF plans to remove weak algorithms and strengthen existing algorithms behind encryption. This means that the US National Security Agency and other surveillors will find it harder to crack current forms of encryption. In other words: the IETF proposes putting locks in more places and making existing locks harder to pick. If the protocols are applied, intercepting the traffic between any two points on the internet— the sender and receiver of an email, the visitor and owner of a website, the buyer and seller of a product—will be close to impossible. Starting November 3, the IETF will hold a week of meetings in Vancouver, Canada to concretise the online security plans in person. Raising the bar for surveillance The IETF is confident that their plans will make a difference, but what do other experts on the internet’s technical infrastructure think? Axl Pavlik, managing director of the Europe’s Internet Registry (RIPE NCC), is guardedly optimistic. “It wouldn’t stop the problem, but it would make the effort [of surveillance] more expensive.” Pavlik likens the plans to a successful countermove in an indefinite arms race between internet users and snoopers. “You and I have limited resources, and the surveillor has limited resources –maybe more than we have – but if millions of users of the internet raise the bar a little bit, the requirements to surveil every little bit of internet traffic would be much higher,” he explained to RNW. The IETF’s plans also benefit people who are already encrypting their online activities themselves, argued Marco Hogewoning, technical adviser to RIPE NCC. According to him, these people currently stick out like a sore thumb to the very surveillors they hope to evade. “If you see an armoured car now on the street, you know there must be something valuable inside,” Hogewoning explained. “If everybody drives around in an armoured car, I can go around and put a lot of effort into breaking into each and every car, and hope I get lucky and find something valuable inside, but it might be empty. If everybody encrypts everything, all you can see is armoured cars.” Take it or leave it Yet while the IETF can propose standards and protocols, it has no power to enforce their adoption. The onus to adopt the standards lies with the software developers who make browsers and web servers, as well as website owners, and everyday internet users who need to heed browser updates. “It’s a great initiative,” said Gillo Cutrupi, a digital security trainer at Tactical Tech. “But it if it’s not adopted, it’s just a piece of paper.” A standard like HTTPS, for instance, can already be applied by every website to improve security. Cutrupi explains that many websites unfortunately still make use of unsafe options. Such options might be popular because they are easier to use. Some websites don’t care for security, and ignore the standard; Yahoo Mail will only make HTTPS encryption the default setting starting January 2014. Yet Arkko, the IETF chair, doesn’t see universal adoption as a big hurdle. “I have no worry about that,” he said. “Our standards are very widely applied.” He stressed that in addition to increased security, newer standards offer multiple advantages. “HTTP 2.0 has many other improvements.” In one example, he pointed out that “for the users, websites would load faster.” These improvements would no doubt serve as an incentive for websites to implement the new protocol. The end point of trust Yet one major caveat remains. While the IETF might be able to secure the pipes through which users’ data travel, users must also be able to trust the parties where their data is stored: software, hardware and services such as Cisco, Gmail and Facebook. These parties can hand over user data directly to government agencies. Arkko stressed the limitations of what the internet’s engineers can do. “We are trying to do as much as we can,” he explained, “which will help situations where there’s someone in the network monitoring you. It will not help situations where someone has direct access to your email provider.” Axl Pavlik identifies the problem of trust at another level altogether “In the end, it’s down to public policy, governments, secret services. And maybe the secret court orders to release a key [which] we will never know about. That shatters the trust of the internet as we know it. That’s the very bad situation that we need to get out of.” Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 31 13:53:49 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:53:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS strategic objectives in Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131031102347.1ae97c45@quill> <19F0CDD2-6C54-41EA-A70F-07FB4E009AD7@glocom.ac.jp> <20131031115306.712dd75c@quill> Message-ID: <20131031185349.2b3ca4a0@quill> McTim wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > > So I would say that for example a reform of ICANN's model of > > accountability/oversight could be part of the agenda of the summit, > > but only if this is done in the context of a broader “Internet > > governance architecture” theme that also addresses the creation > > of a mechanism to end the large-scale global privacy violations > > committed by the NSA. > > The only possible mechanism to do this is called strong encryption. Yes -- or more precisely: Strong encryption, well-applied. Google uses reasonably strong crypto when interfacing with end users. That doesn't help against the NSA snooping directly on Google's cloud as per the attached picture from the Snowden cache of documents. When talking about better protecting (by means of encryption) communications privacy on the Internet, we need to distinguish between communications content on one hand and on the other hand the communications metadata that is essential for - getting the communications content delivered to the right destination, - convincing the recipient machine to accept the communication, - providing an error notification to the sender if the communication was improperly addressed. End-to-end encryption of communications content, without trying to encrypt the metadata, is to a large extent a solved problem. We have standardized mechanisms for this. The problem is just that these mechanisms are not nearly widely enough used. This is in fact a problem that governments could do a lot to address, without any need for an international treaty. For example, how to use email encryption securely could be made part of the obligatory curriculum of public schools, courses could be made available free of charge to adults to allow them to catch up on this, and after a transition period, it could be made a requirement for personal email communication with government institutions that the email must be encrypted. The metadata privacy problem is of course more difficult. We don't have good solutions in that area yet. It might help though when some governments announce an intention to promote the use of such technologies (e.g. in a similar manner to what I've proposed above for content encryption) as soon as credible solutions based on open standards become available. > To think that governments will agree at a "Summit" (called for by a US > non-profit and one gov't) to stop spying on their own people (and each > others) seems fairly naive. I agree. However IMO it is not totally unrealistic though for a summit to result (possibly among other outcomes) in some governments getting serious about empowering their people and their companies to better protect themselves against foreign spying - by technical means. I'm here not talking about a treaty or any other form of “negotiating a stop to it”. > Gov't will express outrage in public, but negotiating a stop to it in > a UN summit with many years of prep work and negotiations would be a > real stretch for them. In a non-UN "summit" I think that is really > unrealistic. Yes. > However, the press about their surveillance plans for the World Cup > seem to suggest that even they wouldn't sign an int'l treaty limiting > their ability to monitor communications. Well they might sign it, but > violate it anyway, as would many nation states IMHO. Yes. A “treaty to stop spying” is not only not realistic to achieve, in the current climate. There is also no reason to expect that such a treaty would be effective. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NSA-Google-Cloud.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53872 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t