From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Jul 31 17:33:46 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:33:46 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-kK_xFpctEKJqV4imRbbVuC=3oQ6hWWb=ykOWj1iWYZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
	<53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
	<097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
	<20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
	<CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxgG3YxHYgBVE-=NJp3SYPQWqTaUbJjp=UvYTu_ehUVQbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_iMq3oKGB4AOm2nvN-f+WFPgR8S78mPG-UnnV8RedXwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140731215706.559ed5de@quill>
	<CACTo+v-kK_xFpctEKJqV4imRbbVuC=3oQ6hWWb=ykOWj1iWYZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140731233346.79517def@quill>

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:52:06 +0000
Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Would that have made more sense had I said that in this following way?
> If one adopts the perspective of MSism as in "the original notion of
> individuals
> speaking for themselves in shaping Internet policy," then a scaling
> problem arises at some point within that perspective? Because that
> was my starting point. In a different perspective, that problem may
> go away, indeed may not even exist.

That perspective is largely about what I referred to as 'a', and you
will find my answer there. As case in point, consider how it has come
about that the increase of the number of participants has not caused the
IETF to stop functioning.

> However, I note that while saying scaling is not at all a problem in
> case 'b', you're still considering the number of people behind a
> solution path ("getting enough people")

There my “enough” was not about numbers though, but about getting enough
input about the various relevant grass-roots perspectives. No kind of
information processing system can generate good outputs in the absence
of sufficient information in the inputs.

> Even a seemingly simple
> equation such as "one person, one vote" is not always easy to
> implement in a transnational, global online context.

In fact already in a national context what I'm talking about is not at
all easy to implement properly. I'm after all talking not just about
holding elections, but about creating real accountability. In regard to
the standard of democracy which I'm positing, for example the US has
very clearly and demonstrably become a failed state.

Nota bene I'm not advocating for implementing a "one person, one vote"
system at the global level. I think that implementing a good system of
that kind at the national level in each country is not only hard
enough, but also sufficient, together with something like what I'm
proposing at http://WisdomTaskForce.org .

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  Thu Jul 31 19:48:39 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:48:39 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <20140731233346.79517def@quill>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
 <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgG3YxHYgBVE-=NJp3SYPQWqTaUbJjp=UvYTu_ehUVQbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_iMq3oKGB4AOm2nvN-f+WFPgR8S78mPG-UnnV8RedXwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140731215706.559ed5de@quill> <CACTo+v-kK_xFpctEKJqV4imRbbVuC=3oQ6hWWb=ykOWj1iWYZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140731233346.79517def@quill>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8sdoKWAkcRh=7wZ=97x5yTLcKdvGAVEXwCmKwUD6DYWQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:52:06 +0000
> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would that have made more sense had I said that in this following way?
> > If one adopts the perspective of MSism as in "the original notion of
> > individuals
> > speaking for themselves in shaping Internet policy," then a scaling
> > problem arises at some point within that perspective? Because that
> > was my starting point. In a different perspective, that problem may
> > go away, indeed may not even exist.
>
> That perspective is largely about what I referred to as 'a', and you
> will find my answer there.


Well, the fact is that the world is not full of "thinkers" and policy
analysts. And there might even be a whole lot of people in between your 'a'
and 'b'. Oh, wait... I shouldn't have previously said a scaling problem
arises _within_ that perspective but rather (and this is what I meant) that
perspective faces a scaling challenge when comes the need to take into
account a greater and greater number of people, not all of whom are
"thinkers" or policy analysts while they may even still be able to speak
for themselves. (However I don't think this clarification changes anything
to your response here which has started in and is consistent with your
earlier response to my message prior.)


> As case in point, consider how it has come
> about that the increase of the number of participants has not caused the
> IETF to stop functioning.
>

I realize your "a/b" seem to be a sort of partitioning of the types of
audience/participants there are in MSism? And the IETF type where
individuals speak for themselves, in your view, is completely separate from
the other where the main/only challenge would be to make sure there are
enough variety of inputs to cover all concerns on the ground. The only
problem I have with that is that it looks like you were not responding to
me (contrary to what your quoting me in that email suggests) as much as you
were offering a different take (your own) about multistakeholder
participation. For my part, I was responding to McTim who appears to
consider the IETF type (he didn't explicitly label it IETF though in that
particular message of his) where individuals would speak for themselves and
their ideas be evaluated on merits as the model for MSism, any MSism (which
would mean that the same assumptions that make that breed of MSism work
should be carried over to any other instance of MSism.) To that I was
simply responding that that breed of MSism may be good for epistemic
communities of practice (or communities of your "thinkers" and analysts)
but it and its assumptions are not scalable to addressing global policy
issues with adequate inclusiveness. It looks like what you did is to put
'a' and 'b' into silos and then claim there's no scaling problem since by
making them into silos you have removed the possibility for a need to scale
from a-type to b-type.

Anyway, I think there are global public policy issues which the 'a' crowd
and the 'b' crowd will need to come together and address (at least for
which they and everybody in between will be legitimate stakeholders.) I
think whenever that happens, again at global level, there is one way or the
other a scaling challenge --although I'm not saying this cannot be
resolved. Even if it's about making sure all meaningful issues are covered,
it's not the same to make sure they are for 20 million people as for 1
billion people, overlaps notwithstanding (eg, multiple languages and
cultural differences remain, to name but a couple of factors.) You may also
note that even democratic representation (representative democracy) is also
a response to a scaling problem (and as you rightly point out, it's already
complicated enough at national level...). If you still don't see it that
way, we may agree to disagree on this bit.

Mawaki


>
> > However, I note that while saying scaling is not at all a problem in
> > case 'b', you're still considering the number of people behind a
> > solution path ("getting enough people")
>
> There my "enough" was not about numbers though, but about getting enough
> input about the various relevant grass-roots perspectives. No kind of
> information processing system can generate good outputs in the absence
> of sufficient information in the inputs.
>
> > Even a seemingly simple
> > equation such as "one person, one vote" is not always easy to
> > implement in a transnational, global online context.
>
> In fact already in a national context what I'm talking about is not at
> all easy to implement properly. I'm after all talking not just about
> holding elections, but about creating real accountability. In regard to
> the standard of democracy which I'm positing, for example the US has
> very clearly and demonstrably become a failed state.
>
> Nota bene I'm not advocating for implementing a "one person, one vote"
> system at the global level. I think that implementing a good system of
> that kind at the national level in each country is not only hard
> enough, but also sufficient, together with something like what I'm
> proposing at http://WisdomTaskForce.org .
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/5ed76327/attachment.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 jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Jul 31 20:29:24 2014
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:29:24 -0700
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <20140729163109.439fa0fd@quill>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>	<53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>	<097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>	<20140727170421.21844b47@quill>	<CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>	<CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>	<9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba>	<CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>	<8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba>	<CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>	<CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>	<CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>	<CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140729163109.439fa0fd@qu!
 ill>
Message-ID: <53DADF64.1000609@eff.org>

On 29/07/2014 7:31 am, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> I'm not so sure that “common understanding” is really so much more
> modest than “definition”. It is common for multiple definitions to
> co-exist, but multiple “common understandings”?
>
> One way to work towards clarity of communication when there are
> multiple understandings is to add qualifiers. For example, useful
> labels may be: “equal-footing multistakeholderism”, “open-participation
> multistakeholderism”, “Geneva-style multistakeholdersm”, “democratic
> multistakeholderism”, etc.
>
> Personally, I have a definition for “democratic multistakeholderism” at 
> http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democratic-multistakeholderism/
> and I would greatly appreciate if others would also somehow label and
> define their preferred understanding or model of multistakeholderism.

Cross-posting to Best Bits for reasons that will become apparent, though
I'm not posting with my Best Bits steering committee hat.

Settling on a normative definition of multi-stakeholderism (or a
"quality seal" as I called it at the Bali IGF meeting) is something I've
been wanting to do for a long while, and something I thought Best Bits
could (a) do, and (b) use as a criterion for ongoing participation.  The
last meeting of the steering committee ended without an agreement on (b)
and neither was there a widespread desire to devote the next Best Bits
meeting in Istanbul to doing (a).

However it was accepted that if a self-organised fluid working group
were to do (a) between now and the meeting, then the result could be
presented (but not extensively debated) at the Best Bits meeting, and it
seems to me that that could lead into a later resolution of the larger
group about whether to go with (b), since we would at least have a
firmer idea of what the criterion for participation would be.

This fortuitously has coincided with this thread on the governance list,
as well as similar thoughts circulating on the IGF multistakeholder best
practices list (though discussion there has been slapped down).  Without
attempting to hijack those discussions, would it help to have a few
people work more intensively on this privately, and then bring it back
to the larger groups to gauge whether it could reach consensus either
amongst the IGC or Best Bits, or subset thereof?

I plan to also install LiquidFeedback (http://liquidfeedback.org/) as a
tool to help reach a rational consensus, given that this is a
controversial topic that usually erupts into flame wars when conducted
on lists.  Thanks to Carolina for the pointer to that tool.  I agree
with Ian and others that using the NETmundial wording on Internet
governance principles makes a better starting point than starting from
scratch.  If anyone thinks this is a good plan, let me know and I'll
invite you onto the working group and give you a login to LiquidFeedback.

On a more substantive point relating to this thread, since
post-NETmundial we have progressed beyond the idea of fixed roles for
stakeholder groups, it seems to me that the "equal footing" argument,
besides being contentious, is basically moot and doesn't have to appear
in the definition.  We can simply acknowledge that the roles will vary
on an issue by issue basis, and implicitly this means that no
stakeholder group automatically has a role superior to the others (eg. I
suppose nobody, presumably not even the statists in our ranks, would
suggest that governments take over the IETF).

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 309 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/47fe8d2d/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul  1 03:55:56 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:55:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] Facebook Does Mind Control
In-Reply-To: <20140701003530.18d0e784@quill>
References: <13e201cf944b$4bd286a0$e37793e0$@gmail.com>
	<53B151F5.5010009@digsys.bg>
	<20140701003530.18d0e784@quill>
Message-ID: <20140701095556.209f1086@quill>

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
> > There is nothing particular we need to do about it. It will sort
> > out itself just like any other human society "problem" before that.
> 
> Some issues need governance action. Others don't.
> 
> > Just as with having had already certain diseases as child makes you 
> > immune to the same diseases later, so will happen with this
> > "Facebook mind control".
> [..]
> > Sharing knowledge and good practice is how it will all be "solved".
> 
> In regard to this particular issue, this view that no governance
> action is needed sounds plausible enough to me.   

Upon further reflection, the conclusion that no governance action is
needed (because social phenomena --like outrage, fear of being
manipulated by a machine, and the resulting decline of willingness of
people to use websites that use “mind control” techniques-- will address
the issue more effectively than any governance action could) is valid
only in regard to *known* uses of “mind control” techniques.

In view of the outrage, any further research projects in this direction
are likely to be classified. Also we don't know how far classified
research in this direction may have advanced already. Actually we don't
know whether secret capabilities to significantly influence the mood of
a country's population (e.g. in relation to an election) might in fact
already exist.

I'm now coming to the conclusion that some kind of action on this might
be needed after all. Maybe some kind of research program aimed at
developing tools that can be used both by cyberdefense institutions as
well as by the general public to try to detect any use of “mind
control” techniques that might be happening.

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  Tue Jul  1 04:02:18 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:02:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] Facebook Does Mind Control
In-Reply-To: <20140630122724.454551a3@quill>
References: <13e201cf944b$4bd286a0$e37793e0$@gmail.com>
	<20140630122724.454551a3@quill>
Message-ID: <20140701100218.007805f6@quill>

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > But now, with the veil having been lifted for a moment where can/do
> > we go with this knowledge?
> 
> Right now, nowhere.
> 
> No effective governance structures for this kind of problem exist yet.

Hmm... maybe the same kind of structures would be suitable for
addressing both this “mind control” issue as well as the technical
aspects of the possibility of mass surveillance? 

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 daniel at digsys.bg  Tue Jul  1 04:33:07 2014
From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:33:07 +0300
Subject: [governance] Facebook Does Mind Control
In-Reply-To: <20140701095556.209f1086@quill>
References: <13e201cf944b$4bd286a0$e37793e0$@gmail.com>	<53B151F5.5010009@digsys.bg>	<20140701003530.18d0e784@quill> <20140701095556.209f1086@quill>
Message-ID: <53B27243.4070007@digsys.bg>


On 01.07.14 10:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>>> There is nothing particular we need to do about it. It will sort
>>> out itself just like any other human society "problem" before that.
>> Some issues need governance action. Others don't.
>>
>>> Just as with having had already certain diseases as child makes you
>>> immune to the same diseases later, so will happen with this
>>> "Facebook mind control".
>> [..]
>>> Sharing knowledge and good practice is how it will all be "solved".
>> In regard to this particular issue, this view that no governance
>> action is needed sounds plausible enough to me.
> Upon further reflection, the conclusion that no governance action is
> needed (because social phenomena --like outrage, fear of being
> manipulated by a machine, and the resulting decline of willingness of
> people to use websites that use “mind control” techniques-- will address
> the issue more effectively than any governance action could) is valid
> only in regard to *known* uses of “mind control” techniques.

Yes, this fear of using technology needs to be addressed. In human 
society, that usually happens when people see more carrot and less stick.

> In view of the outrage, any further research projects in this direction
> are likely to be classified. Also we don't know how far classified
> research in this direction may have advanced already. Actually we don't
> know whether secret capabilities to significantly influence the mood of
> a country's population (e.g. in relation to an election) might in fact
> already exist.

The key observation here is that this "mind control technique" is 
nothing new.

It is being used every day by the mass media such as radio, tv, 
newspapers, news sites etc, under government sanction (and often 
encouragement).
Example: at times of political crisis, the news about murders and 
violence increases. This causes most people to conclude "let them do 
what it takes to fix it".
Because, most people don't really care what happens around, as long as 
it is outside of their immediate circle and "someone is in charge".

In the times when "the Communism broke up", it was discovered that the 
US (and other countries) have whole research centers working on what 
various nationalities fear most and how to influence their behavior to 
do things they would normally never do. It was found to be effective in 
some cases and pretty much useless in other. And have extremely 
unexpected outcome in third.  But so is most research.
How do I know this (first hand)? The Internet :-)

Maybe, in this particular case, the outrage is not that such a technique 
is used, but that such technique is used by a private entity. Imagine, 
what would be if you could manipulate your neighbor to stop parking his 
car in front of your house by planting subconscious fear that might not 
be good idea? Like, for example by being rude to anyone who parks there...
Of course, only Governments should have access to this technology...

> I'm now coming to the conclusion that some kind of action on this might
> be needed after all. Maybe some kind of research program aimed at
> developing tools that can be used both by cyberdefense institutions as
> well as by the general public to try to detect any use of “mind
> control” techniques that might be happening.

Mind control is happening each and every day. That pretty girl is 
dressed in this particular way just because she wants me to notice her. 
The owner of a fancy restaurant makes sure he applies mind control to 
you so you come again and again. Mind control is also applied in this 
very forum all the time. This is what we humans do to influence others.
The only defense is knowledge -- this is why we send our kids to school. 
Without knowledge, they will be easier to manipulate, because their set 
of known situations and adequate reaction will be severely reduced.

But you are right. Governance actions on this are needed: tell people 
Internet is an environment just like any other -- they should expect to 
be manipulated, cheated, subjected to mind control in Internet just as 
they would on the streets of New York. People will learn to properly 
behave, with time.

Daniel

PS: I believe what you propose to be already ongoing.


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Tue Jul  1 04:37:34 2014
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:37:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] Facebook Does Mind Control
In-Reply-To: <53B27243.4070007@digsys.bg>
References: <13e201cf944b$4bd286a0$e37793e0$@gmail.com>
	<53B151F5.5010009@digsys.bg>	<20140701003530.18d0e784@quill>
 <20140701095556.209f1086@quill>,<53B27243.4070007@digsys.bg>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069DA28B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Let me add an old and indispensable reference to this discussion:

https://archive.org/details/TheAbolitionOfMan_229

:-)

//Erik 
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Daniel Kalchev [daniel at digsys.bg]
Sent: Tuesday 1 July 2014 10:33
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook Does Mind Control

On 01.07.14 10:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>>> There is nothing particular we need to do about it. It will sort
>>> out itself just like any other human society "problem" before that.
>> Some issues need governance action. Others don't.
>>
>>> Just as with having had already certain diseases as child makes you
>>> immune to the same diseases later, so will happen with this
>>> "Facebook mind control".
>> [..]
>>> Sharing knowledge and good practice is how it will all be "solved".
>> In regard to this particular issue, this view that no governance
>> action is needed sounds plausible enough to me.
> Upon further reflection, the conclusion that no governance action is
> needed (because social phenomena --like outrage, fear of being
> manipulated by a machine, and the resulting decline of willingness of
> people to use websites that use “mind control” techniques-- will address
> the issue more effectively than any governance action could) is valid
> only in regard to *known* uses of “mind control” techniques.

Yes, this fear of using technology needs to be addressed. In human
society, that usually happens when people see more carrot and less stick.

> In view of the outrage, any further research projects in this direction
> are likely to be classified. Also we don't know how far classified
> research in this direction may have advanced already. Actually we don't
> know whether secret capabilities to significantly influence the mood of
> a country's population (e.g. in relation to an election) might in fact
> already exist.

The key observation here is that this "mind control technique" is
nothing new.

It is being used every day by the mass media such as radio, tv,
newspapers, news sites etc, under government sanction (and often
encouragement).
Example: at times of political crisis, the news about murders and
violence increases. This causes most people to conclude "let them do
what it takes to fix it".
Because, most people don't really care what happens around, as long as
it is outside of their immediate circle and "someone is in charge".

In the times when "the Communism broke up", it was discovered that the
US (and other countries) have whole research centers working on what
various nationalities fear most and how to influence their behavior to
do things they would normally never do. It was found to be effective in
some cases and pretty much useless in other. And have extremely
unexpected outcome in third.  But so is most research.
How do I know this (first hand)? The Internet :-)

Maybe, in this particular case, the outrage is not that such a technique
is used, but that such technique is used by a private entity. Imagine,
what would be if you could manipulate your neighbor to stop parking his
car in front of your house by planting subconscious fear that might not
be good idea? Like, for example by being rude to anyone who parks there...
Of course, only Governments should have access to this technology...

> I'm now coming to the conclusion that some kind of action on this might
> be needed after all. Maybe some kind of research program aimed at
> developing tools that can be used both by cyberdefense institutions as
> well as by the general public to try to detect any use of “mind
> control” techniques that might be happening.

Mind control is happening each and every day. That pretty girl is
dressed in this particular way just because she wants me to notice her.
The owner of a fancy restaurant makes sure he applies mind control to
you so you come again and again. Mind control is also applied in this
very forum all the time. This is what we humans do to influence others.
The only defense is knowledge -- this is why we send our kids to school.
Without knowledge, they will be easier to manipulate, because their set
of known situations and adequate reaction will be severely reduced.

But you are right. Governance actions on this are needed: tell people
Internet is an environment just like any other -- they should expect to
be manipulated, cheated, subjected to mind control in Internet just as
they would on the streets of New York. People will learn to properly
behave, with time.

Daniel

PS: I believe what you propose to be already ongoing.



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Tue Jul  1 04:52:08 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 04:52:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: UK IGF in London
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1ZGFafNXLQracFYU9ZCp0H6iVDS=tdvDc5vKfGWQhTNQ@mail.gmail.com>

This is underway in London. If you are coming to it late you will be able
to use the livestream DVR functionality to go back down the timeline on the
live webcast.




[image: UK IGF] <http://ukigf.org.uk/>Today, *Tuesday 1 July 2014* the *UK
Internet Governance Forum* <http://ukigf.org.uk/events/> (UK-IGF) is taking
place in London. Its aim is to provide a local forum in the UK that engages
industry, government, parliament, academia and civil society in debate on
Internet Governance issues. The Minister for Culture, Communications and
Creative Industries, *Ed Vaizey MP* will be giving a keynote speech during
the day. Topics for discussion include : Net governance session to cover
roadmap & post NETmundial; Parallel workshops discussing: IANA function,
Cyber Security, IPV6; and Network filtering. Remote participation is being
offered by ISOC England who are hosting three webex rooms throughout the
day. Room 1 plenary sessions and workshops are also being webcast via
the Internet
Society livestream channel
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/uk-igf>.

*What*: UK Internet Governance Forum 2014 <http://ukigf.org.uk/events/>
*Where*: London UK
*When*: Tuesday 1 July 2014 - 9am-5pm BST | 0800-1600 UTC | 0400-1100 EDT
*Agenda*:
http://ukigf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Summer-2014-UK-IGF-draft-agenda-website-30.06.14.docx
*Webcast*: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/uk-igf
*Webex*:
Room 1 (am):
https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?ED=237521987&UID=0&PW=NNjEyNjYwNjE5&RT=MTgjMjE%3D
(926
672 991)
Room 2 (am):
https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=mf273253869c171302b5e9d96d5c586db (922
149 305)
Room 3 (am):
https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=m634fd1b14d50ac77df18c83c3aeb5987 (922
444 449)
Room 1 (pm):
https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=m2d8e9c85e7f79d63fb46989e75229f07 (925
682 835)
*Phone bridge*: 1-650-479-3208 | elsewhere
<https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=289881672&tollFree=0>
*Twitter*: #ukigf <https://twitter.com/search?q=ukigf&f=realtime>


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6777#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6777#comments>





*Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6777



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140701/a737c360/attachment.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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Jul  1 06:21:12 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 12:21:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for Papers: Fourth International Symposium on
 Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA2014)
Message-ID: <021801cf9516$2f168d60$8d43a820$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]

Fourth International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis

################################ SIMPDA 2014 ###############################

- http://simpda2014.di.unimi.it/ -

- IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 -

- Milano, Italy, November 19th-21st -

# About SIMPDA #

With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of
process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for
business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6
- 2.12 International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis
is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the
industry can share their insight in this hot new field.

The Symposium will feature a number of keynotes illustrating advanced
approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD
seminar and selected research and industrial demonstrations. This year the
symposium will be held in Milan, the city of Expo 2015.



# Call for Papers #

The IFIP International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and
Analysis (SIMPDA 2013) offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches
and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business
process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis.

The symposium will bring together leading researchers, engineers and
scientists from around the world. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages.
Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original
contributions, not previously published or under review for publication
elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English and must follow the
LNCS Springer Verlag format. Templates can be downloaded from:
http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html

Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceeding volume with an ISBN.
The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to submit extended
articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume hich will be published in
the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing,
http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for early 2014 (extended
papers length will be between 7000 and 9000 words). Around 10-15 papers will
be selected for publication after a second round of review.

– Topics –

Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:

- Business Process modeling languages, notations and methods

- Data-aware and data-centric approaches

- Variability and configuration of process models

- Process Mining with Big Data

- Process simulation and static analyses

- Process data query languages

- Process data mining

- Privacy-aware process data mining

- Process metadata and semantic reasoning

- Process patterns and standards

- Foundations of business process models

- Resource management in business process execution

- Process tracing and monitoring

- Process change management and evolution

- Business process lifecycle

- Case studies and experience reports

- Social process discovery

- Crowdsourced process definition and discovery

– Workshop Format –

In accordance to our historical tradition of proposing SIMPDA as a
symposium, we propose an innovative format for this workshop:

The number of sessions depend on the number of submissions but, considering
the previous editions, we envisage to have four sessions, with 4-5 related
papers assigned to each session. A special session (with a specific review
process) will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students.

Papers are pre-circulated to the authors that will be expected to read all
papers in advance but to avoid exceptional overhead, two are assigned to be
prepared with particular care,  making ready comments and suggestions.

The bulk of the time during each session will be dedicated to open
conversations about all of the papers in a given session, along with any
linkages to the papers and discussions within an earlier session.

The closing session (30 minutes), will include a panel about open challenges
during which every participant will be asked to assemble their
thoughts/project ideas/goals/etc
 that they got out of the workshop.

# Call for PhD Research Plans #

The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the
world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and
research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their
research results.

Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an
extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any
aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy
analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions,
interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social
implications.

Research plans should be at most of 4 page long and should be organized
following the following structure:

Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance.

Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the
relevant the research questions.

Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant
references (papers or books).

Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the
specific contribution.

Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted
focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results,
limitations of the approach.

Research stage: describes what the student has done so far.

- SIMPDA PhD award -

A doctoral award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Jury to the best research
plan submitted.

Student Scholarships

An application for a limited number of scholarships aimed at students coming
from emerging countries has been submitted to IFIP.

In order to apply, please contact paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it

# Keynote Speakers #

Jorge Cardoso

University of Coimbra, Portugal

- Compliance of Business Processes with Reference Models -

Reference models provide best practices to design effective and efficient
business processes. However, a main challenge is to evaluate how these best
practices are implemented. One limitation of existing approaches is the
assumption that compliance can be determined using the notion of process
equivalence. Nonetheless, the use of equivalence algorithms is not suitable
since two models can have different structures but one process can still be
compliant with the other. This talk presents an approach to measure the
compliance of process models with reference models, which was used by a
German passenger airline using IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) reference
models. The talk also covers various initiatives to evaluate the quality and
understandability of process models.



# Industrial Talks #



Claudia Sebastiani

Creativi Quadrati, Partner openERP



- Business Process Measurement in small enterprises after the installation
of an ERP software -

We report the observation of the first six months of operation after the
installation of an ERP software in a group of small Italian enterprises
(some dealers of various products and one manufacturer). Before the ERP, no
explicit process descriptions existed within the companies: the operations
were manually performed, using office automation software or legacy programs
that were not process oriented. The new ERP is equipped with a workflow
engine, a number of standard processes that should be followed by the users,
and a tracking system that logs the main steps of the processes. We use
process mining tools to analyze the events logged by the ERP during the
sales, the purchases and the manufacture cycles. Our aim is to 1) compare
the ideal processes suggested by the ERP with the real paths followed by the
users 2) describe the eventual adaptation of these paths, as the users
became acquainted with the ERP 3) highlight critical segments in terms of
time spent, iterations, etc. 4) compare the processes of different companies
that are in similar business areas. The final goal is to get a better
understanding of the processes and a rationalization of the operations. It
must be stressed that both the ERP and the main tools used are open source,
so that the process measurement is affordable even for very small (micro)
enterprises.



Gregorio Piccoli

Zucchetti



- Hierarchical clustering for managers -

Data Mining and Process Mining over big amount of data are today more and
more requested by companies. However managers do not have the necessary
competences for handling the results of analysis ran using these techniques.
For this reason data visualization is a key element to exploit the full
potential of data analysis. Zucchetti spa has developed an in-house approach
for constructing user-friendly data visualizers.



Gabriele Ruffati

Engineering Ingegneria Informatica



- A living story: measuring quality of developments in a large industrial
software factory with Open Source Software -

Open Source has no more intrinsic value per se. Nowadays it is facing new
challenges, such as stimulating creativity and bringing innovation into
market. One of its major challenges consists in delivering valuable
outcomes, which requires a PMAI approach: Plan metrics and dimensions of
analysis, get Measures and global performance value from data, Assess
results and Improve processes by solving issues and removing bottlenecks.
Engineering Group uses Open Source Software to makes this happen. Spago4Q,
the analytic of the business intelligence suite SpagoBI, allows the company
to measure the quality of products, processes and services and to monitor
the continuous improvement of quality practices. The measurement and
enhancement of productivity complies with quality certifications such as ISO
and CMMi standards. QESTnd - an n-dimensional measurement model - allows to
collect performance values on three dimensions of analysis (Economical,
Social and Technical) in order to identify process areas that need
improvements. Drill-down capabilities provide both a unified view of the
global performance of the Labs and detailed views of the single process
dimensions.



# Organizers #

CHAIRS

- Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany

- Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- Barbara Russo, Free University of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy

ADVISORY BOARD

- Karl Aberer, EPFL, Switzerland

- Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- Tharam Dillon, La Trobe University, Australia

- Dragan Gasevic, Athabasca University, Canada

- Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria

- Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands

- Philippe Cudré-Mauroux , University of Fribourg, Switzerland

# Important Dates #

- Submission of Full Papers:  September 15th 2014

- Submission of PhD Research Plans:  September 15th 2014

- Notification of Acceptance:  October 15th 2014

- Submission of Camera Ready Papers:  November 10th 2014



# Program Committee #

- Irene Vanderfeesten, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

- Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands

- Manfred Reichert, University of Ulm, Germany

- Schahram Dustdar, Vienna University of Technology, Austria

- Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux, France

- Meiko Jensen, Ruhr-Uni­ver­si­ty Bo­chum, Germany

- Helen Balinsky, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, UK

- Valentina Emilia Balas, University of Arad, Romania

- Karima Boudaoud, Ecole Polytechnique de Nice Sophia Antipolis, France

- George Spanoudakis, City University London, UK

- Richard Chbeir, University of Bourgogne, France

- Gregorio Martinez Perez, University of Murcia, Spain

- Ebrahim Bagheri, Ryerson University, Canada

- Jan Mendling, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria

- Farookh Hussain, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

- Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE

- Wil Van der Aalst, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands

- Ronald Maier, University of Innsbruck, Austria

- Chintan Amrit, University of Twente, The Netherlands

- Marco Montali, Free Unviersity of Bozen - Bolzano, Italy

- Elizabeth Chang, University New South Wales, Australia

- Peter Spyns, Flemish Government, Belgium

- Angelo Corallo, University of Salento, Italy

- Antonio Maña Gómez, University of Málaga, Spain

- Mustafa Jarrar, Birzeit University, Palestinian Territory

- Isabella Seeber, University of Innsbruck, Austria

- Chi Hung, Tsinghua University, China

- Alessandra Toninelli, Engineering Group, Italy

- Haris Mouratidis, University of Brighton, UK

- Abder Koukam, University of Technology, UTBM France

- Fabrizio Maria Maggi, University of Tartu, Estonia

- Massimiliano  De Leoni, Eindhoven TU, Netherlands

- Edgar Weippl, TU Vienna, Austria

- Pnina Soffer, University of Haifa, Israel

- Jianmin Wang, Tsinghua University Beijing, China

- Minseok Song, UNIST, South Korea

- Roland Rieke, Fraunhofer SIT, Germany

- Josep Carmona, UPC - Barcelona, Spain

- Mark Strembeck, WU Vienna, Austria

- Matthias Weidlich, Imperial College, UK

- Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux

- Maria Leitner, University of Vienna, Austria

- Benoit Depaire, University of Hasselt, Belgium

- Barbara Weber, University of Innsbruck, Austria

- Babiga Birregah, University of Technology of Troyes, France

# Historical Information on Previous Editions #

SIMPDA was proposed in 2011 and 2012 by IFIP WG 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 as the
International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis.

The symposium had around 30 attendees in 2011 and 20 in 2012. It featured a
number of keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on
recent research, and a competitive PhD seminar, together with selected
research and industrial demonstrations. The authors of the accepted papers
have been invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium
proceedings volume published in the Springer LNBIP series.

Several events and activities arose off these symposia, among the most
notables we have two Dagstuhl seminars:

Dagstuhl Seminar on Semantic Challenges in Sensor Networks, January 24-29,
2010.

Dagstuhl Seminar on Unleashing Operational Process Mining, November 24-29,
2010.

The venue was for both editions Campione d’Italia, the Italian enclave
surrounded by Swiss territory, on the shores of Lake Lugano.






****************
Il 5 x mille alla nostra Università è un investimento sui giovani,
sui loro migliori progetti.

Sostiene la libera ricerca.
Alimenta le loro speranze nel futuro.

Investi il tuo 5 x mille sui giovani.

Università degli Studi di Milano
codice fiscale 80012650158

http://www.unimi.it/13084.htm?utm_source=firmaMail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=linkFirmaEmail&utm_campaign=5xmille

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140701/06e3d959/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Jul  1 10:02:45 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 19:32:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] ICANN - regulator or the regulated
Message-ID: <53B2BF85.5070002@itforchange.net>

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/01/icann-future-of-the-internet#start-of-comments

People have begun to point to the emperor's (non) clothes... Will the 
emperor and the courtiers take notice.

parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140701/4b7a1ce5/attachment.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Jul  1 11:23:44 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 17:23:44 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN - regulator or the regulated
References: <53B2BF85.5070002@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642411@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I hope that Julia will participate in more ICANN Meetings. She could join NCUC, a good place also for critical academics. I am sure, as soon as she gets more knowledge from inside the processes she will write another article. But it is good to broaden the discussion. Read the comments and what "Domainincite" has said. Sailing backwards is not the answer to meet the challenges of the 21st century when you have to charter new territory. 

Wolfgang


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Di 01.07.2014 16:02
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: [governance] ICANN - regulator or the regulated
 
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/01/icann-future-of-the-internet#start-of-comments

People have begun to point to the emperor's (non) clothes... Will the 
emperor and the courtiers take notice.

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 lucabelli at hotmail.it  Tue Jul  1 11:38:21 2014
From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:38:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for Papers - DC Net Neutrality Report
In-Reply-To: <DUB122-W2315D56DF4C5620C19F71AC6100@phx.gbl>
References:  <DUB122-W16BB493C615A947B4E6D55C6470@phx.gbl>,<DUB122-W2315D56DF4C5620C19F71AC6100@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <DUB122-W19E6B9C5155E8A5E54E060C6070@phx.gbl>



Dear all (apologies for cross-posting), 


Due to numerous deadline-extension requests, the deadline
for contributions to the 2014 Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality
has been extended to 10 July 2014.


Below the details of the Call for Papers,
 Best, 


Luca






Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality







Call for Papers

 

Network
Neutrality:

Regulatory
Tendencies, Peering Agreements

&
Infrastructure Enhancement

 

 

 

Background:

 

The
network neutrality debate is gaining great political momentum. Several
countries have already implemented network neutrality laws, while many others
are currently elaborating or scrutinising the opportunity to elaborate network
neutrality legislation. Yet, we are witnessing today the emergence of a variety
of divergent (and somewhat incompatible) approaches towards whether or not
network neutrality is enshrined in law.

 

In
the U.S., the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal invalidated the U.S. FCC Open
Internet Order. On the other hand, the Brazilian National Congress has recently
adopted the Marco Civil an Internet Bill of Rights containing network
neutrality provisions, while at the European level net-neutrality is going to
be enshrined into legislation but the outcome of this latter process seem
currently difficult to predict.

 

While
the network neutrality debate continues, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) may
enter into opaque interconnection-arrangements (peering agreements) that might
include discriminatory provisions. In the U.S., for instance, Content and
Applications Providers (CAPs) have been experimenting new typology of peering
agreements that require CAPs to pay ISPs for a direct connection to their
consumers (so called “sender-pays” model).

 

The
aforementioned issues seem difficult to solve without a serious reflection
aimed at allowing the elaboration of evidence-based strategies. The 2014 Report
of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality aims at fostering such a
reflection in order to provide a valuable contribution to the crucial debate
pertaining to the balance between network-neutrality implementation and
infrastructure enhancement.

 

Call:

 

The
Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, established under the auspices of the
United Nations Internet Governance Forum, invites researchers and practitioners
to submit a position paper pertaining to the issue of net neutrality and
regulatory tendencies.

 

Suggested
topics include analyses of, inter alia:

 

·        
DC Circuit Court of
Appeal Decision on the FCC Open Internet Order

·        
European Union’s
draft, Connected Continent Regulation, as amended by the European  Parliament

·        
Brazilian Marco Civil

·        
Venezuela’s Internet
Crackdown

·        
Turkey’s
Social-Network Blocking

·        
Peering Agreements

·        
Comcast-Netflix Deal

·        
National/Regional/Local
Network Enhancement Policies

·       Availability and
implementation of remedies by regulatory authorities, when access providers
have implemented anti-competitive non-neutral policies.



Submission Guidelines:

 

Research
papers, including analytical and theoretical papers, position papers, or case
studies will be considered for inclusion in the report, even if they have been
previously published. The length of the submissions should be between 2500 and
5000 words. To facilitate the reviewing process, papers should not include
author names or other information that would help identify the authors.

 

All
paper shall be in English language, and formatted according to the HWPiL style template.

 

Submissions
are due on 10th July, 2014. They
should include the following elements:

·     
Title

·     
Short abstract (250
words)

·     
Original contribution

·     
Author’s name,
affiliation and short bibliographical note (in the body of the email).

 

Submissions
should be sent to contact at networkneutrality.info 

Authors
will be notified within approximately two weeks from the deadline as to the
status of their contributions.

 

All
submitted papers will be subject to a rigorous double-blind peer review, whereby
each paper will be reviewed by at least two reviewers. Everyone who submitted a
paper will be asked to peer review another submission, which will be judged
according to the novelty of the contribution, the theoretical soundness and the
quality of presentation.

 

Authors
will be given the opportunity to improve their contributions based on peer comments.
Selected papers will be published into the Dynamic Coalition report, which will
be published under Open Access conditions. All authors must ensure that their
contribution can be licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses of
their choice.

 

Some
of the authors will also be invited (at their own expenses) to present their
work at the first DC meeting to be held at the United Nation Internet Governance
Forum, from 2 to

5
September 2014, in Istanbul (Turkey).

 

 



Luca Belli

 		 	   		   		 	   		   		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140701/2566e99f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Call for Papers DC NN 2014.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 246996 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140701/2566e99f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140701/2566e99f/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Tue Jul  1 11:43:52 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:43:52 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN - regulator or the regulated
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642411@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <53B2BF85.5070002@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642411@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BD6F0C0A-5949-4C1E-BB09-886470930406@theglobaljournal.net>

Yes, let's hope Julia will attend more ICANN meetings, but let's wait to see her reaction. I find it a bit amusing that you are so sure about her changing her mind. Ne prenons nos désirs pour des réalités, Wolfgang.

Chartering new territories is, and has always been, a very challenging task. With a compass and few other instruments, travelers were able to sail for the high seas, at last. Today, what's our compass? I only see democracy as a solid and trustful compass. So let's see how, departing from the democratic multistakeholder model defined in Sao Paulo, we can improve Internet governance. Let's see, if permitted, where it would lead us to explore Internet governance with democratic perspective and principles as our common compass for the common goods. Then we would set accountable entities (with check and balance duly performed), protecting us against monopolies and abuse of power... ICANN legitimacy is more than ever at stake, and not only on Internet Governance issue (I agree with Fadi last comments in London, that this is not ICANN business per say anyway) but also with the DNS management and all of its functions and features. Let' snot be afraid of innovation in Internet Governance, if we have a true compass. That will bring trust within l'équipage and help every one to journey safely to establish new frontiers. Civil society is there to hold that democratic ideal, even in Internet governance, where everything is not just happening for the sake of public interest. (Hi guys from the business!)

JC



Le 1 juil. 2014 à 17:23, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :

> I hope that Julia will participate in more ICANN Meetings. She could join NCUC, a good place also for critical academics. I am sure, as soon as she gets more knowledge from inside the processes she will write another article. But it is good to broaden the discussion. Read the comments and what "Domainincite" has said. Sailing backwards is not the answer to meet the challenges of the 21st century when you have to charter new territory. 
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Di 01.07.2014 16:02
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Betreff: [governance] ICANN - regulator or the regulated
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/01/icann-future-of-the-internet#start-of-comments
> 
> People have begun to point to the emperor's (non) clothes... Will the 
> emperor and the courtiers take notice.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140701/83998238/attachment.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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Jul  1 15:06:23 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 21:06:23 +0200
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] ICANN - regulator or the regulated
References: <53B2BF85.5070002@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642411@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <BD6F0C0A-5949-4C1E-BB09-886470930406@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164241A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48338039/ATLAS%20II%20Declaration.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1403820681000&api=v2

One avenue to move forward in this unchartered territory is to support the recommendations made recently by the At Large Summitt (see above)#

wolfgang 




-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Gesendet: Di 01.07.2014 17:43
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: parminder
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] ICANN - regulator or the regulated
 
Yes, let's hope Julia will attend more ICANN meetings, but let's wait to see her reaction. I find it a bit amusing that you are so sure about her changing her mind. Ne prenons nos désirs pour des réalités, Wolfgang.

Chartering new territories is, and has always been, a very challenging task.. With a compass and few other instruments, travelers were able to sail for the high seas, at last. Today, what's our compass? I only see democracy as a solid and trustful compass. So let's see how, departing from the democratic multistakeholder model defined in Sao Paulo, we can improve Internet governance. Let's see, if permitted, where it would lead us to explore Internet governance with democratic perspective and principles as our common compass for the common goods. Then we would set accountable entities (with check and balance duly performed), protecting us against monopolies and abuse of power... ICANN legitimacy is more than ever at stake, and not only on Internet Governance issue (I agree with Fadi last comments in London, that this is not ICANN business per say anyway) but also with the DNS management and all of its functions and features. Let' snot be afraid of innovation in Internet Governance, if we have a true compass. That will bring trust within l'équipage and help every one to journey safely to establish new frontiers. Civil society is there to hold that democratic ideal, even in Internet governance, where everything is not just happening for the sake of public interest. (Hi guys from the business!)

JC



Le 1 juil. 2014 à 17:23, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :

> I hope that Julia will participate in more ICANN Meetings. She could join NCUC, a good place also for critical academics. I am sure, as soon as she gets more knowledge from inside the processes she will write another article. But it is good to broaden the discussion. Read the comments and what "Domainincite" has said. Sailing backwards is not the answer to meet the challenges of the 21st century when you have to charter new territory. 
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
> Gesendet: Di 01.07.2014 16:02
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Betreff: [governance] ICANN - regulator or the regulated
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/01/icann-future-of-the-internet#start-of-comments
> 
> People have begun to point to the emperor's (non) clothes... Will the 
> emperor and the courtiers take notice.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 Jul  2 08:15:10 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 14:15:10 +0200
Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Facebook Does Mind Control
Message-ID: <048201cf95ef$45acd230$d1067690$@gmail.com>

Blogpost:
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/facebook-does-mind-control/

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of JOSEFSSON Erik
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:38 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Daniel Kalchev
Subject: RE: [governance] Facebook Does Mind Control

Let me add an old and indispensable reference to this discussion:

https://archive.org/details/TheAbolitionOfMan_229

:-)

//Erik
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Daniel Kalchev
[daniel at digsys.bg]
Sent: Tuesday 1 July 2014 10:33
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook Does Mind Control

On 01.07.14 10:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
>>> There is nothing particular we need to do about it. It will sort out 
>>> itself just like any other human society "problem" before that.
>> Some issues need governance action. Others don't.
>>
>>> Just as with having had already certain diseases as child makes you 
>>> immune to the same diseases later, so will happen with this 
>>> "Facebook mind control".
>> [..]
>>> Sharing knowledge and good practice is how it will all be "solved".
>> In regard to this particular issue, this view that no governance 
>> action is needed sounds plausible enough to me.
> Upon further reflection, the conclusion that no governance action is 
> needed (because social phenomena --like outrage, fear of being 
> manipulated by a machine, and the resulting decline of willingness of 
> people to use websites that use "mind control" techniques-- will 
> address the issue more effectively than any governance action could) 
> is valid only in regard to *known* uses of "mind control" techniques.

Yes, this fear of using technology needs to be addressed. In human society,
that usually happens when people see more carrot and less stick.

> In view of the outrage, any further research projects in this 
> direction are likely to be classified. Also we don't know how far 
> classified research in this direction may have advanced already. 
> Actually we don't know whether secret capabilities to significantly 
> influence the mood of a country's population (e.g. in relation to an 
> election) might in fact already exist.

The key observation here is that this "mind control technique" is nothing
new.

It is being used every day by the mass media such as radio, tv, newspapers,
news sites etc, under government sanction (and often encouragement).
Example: at times of political crisis, the news about murders and violence
increases. This causes most people to conclude "let them do what it takes to
fix it".
Because, most people don't really care what happens around, as long as it is
outside of their immediate circle and "someone is in charge".

In the times when "the Communism broke up", it was discovered that the US
(and other countries) have whole research centers working on what various
nationalities fear most and how to influence their behavior to do things
they would normally never do. It was found to be effective in some cases and
pretty much useless in other. And have extremely unexpected outcome in
third.  But so is most research.
How do I know this (first hand)? The Internet :-)

Maybe, in this particular case, the outrage is not that such a technique is
used, but that such technique is used by a private entity. Imagine, what
would be if you could manipulate your neighbor to stop parking his car in
front of your house by planting subconscious fear that might not be good
idea? Like, for example by being rude to anyone who parks there...
Of course, only Governments should have access to this technology...

> I'm now coming to the conclusion that some kind of action on this 
> might be needed after all. Maybe some kind of research program aimed 
> at developing tools that can be used both by cyberdefense institutions 
> as well as by the general public to try to detect any use of "mind 
> control" techniques that might be happening.

Mind control is happening each and every day. That pretty girl is dressed in
this particular way just because she wants me to notice her.
The owner of a fancy restaurant makes sure he applies mind control to you so
you come again and again. Mind control is also applied in this very forum
all the time. This is what we humans do to influence others.
The only defense is knowledge -- this is why we send our kids to school.
Without knowledge, they will be easier to manipulate, because their set of
known situations and adequate reaction will be severely reduced.

But you are right. Governance actions on this are needed: tell people
Internet is an environment just like any other -- they should expect to be
manipulated, cheated, subjected to mind control in Internet just as they
would on the streets of New York. People will learn to properly behave, with
time.

Daniel

PS: I believe what you propose to be already ongoing.





-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul  3 04:22:42 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 04:22:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST NOW: Kenya Internet Governance Forum #kenyaigf
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3+Y2q=FXNAopJ1Gx1q1BZLEf7XFs_Eu+LxX3hqQFQiSA@mail.gmail.com>

This is underway.  If you go on the webex, listen to the livestream - much
better quality.

 joly posted: " Today Thursday 3 July 2014 the 5th Kenya Internet
Governance Forum (KIGF) is underway in Nairobi. This year's theme is
“Connecting Counties for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance”.
The KIGF provides stakeholders drawn from the Government, Priv"


[image: Kenya IGF] Today Thursday 3 July 2014 the 5th *Kenya Internet
Governance Forum* <http://kenyaigf.or.ke/> (KIGF) is underway in Nairobi.
This year's theme is “*Connecting Counties for Enhanced Multistakeholder
Internet Governance*”. The KIGF provides stakeholders drawn from the
Government, Private Sector, Civil Society, Academia and the Internet
Community with an opportunity to increase their understanding of ICT and
Internet Governance issues that are pertinent to the country. By
correlating these issues with socio-economic, political, culture and
development will strengthen the Internet Governance community of practice
evolving in the East African region. Remote participation is available via
webex, and there is a live webcast via the Internet Society Chapters Channel
<http://bit.ly/isoctv>. Nairobi is UTC+3, 7 hours ahead of NYC time.

*What*: *Kenya Internet Governance Forum*
*Where*: Nairobi
*When*: Thursday 3 July 2014 08:30am-6:00pm EAT | 05:30-15:00 UTC |
01:30-11:00 EDT
*Programme*: http://kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-programme
*Webcast*: http://bit.ly/isoctv
*Webex*: http://kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/log-in-to-remote-participation
*Twitter*: #kenyaigf
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/kenyaigf?f=realtime&src=hash>


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6789#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6789#comments>





*Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6789








-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140703/8a33f355/attachment.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 pouzin at well.com  Fri Jul  4 10:44:28 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 16:44:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] The European Right To Be Forgotten Might Be A
 Pandora's Box
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYq-+uD5-S-Rc54R8nan_9-i1s4KT5uKc3-93N9sqLy73g@mail.gmail.com>

By Joséphine De Ruyck for Intellectual Property Watch

Over the last few months, search engines around the world have been keeping
an active eye on the developments of the landmark case ruled by the
European Court of Justice (ECJ) requiring Google to consider individuals'
requests to remove links that they say infringe on their privacy.

While this right to be forgotten is now recognised as a European general
principle by the ECJ, fears exist as to the larger worldwide implications,
especially for search engines as well as the public's right to access to
information.

[read on
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/07/04/the-european-right-to-be-forgotten-might-be-a-pandoras-box/?utm_source=IP-Watch+Subscribers&utm_campaign=851bcce52b-DAILY_SUMMARY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b78685696b-851bcce52b-352139001>
]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140704/f13b3439/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jul  5 00:11:28 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 09:41:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] The European Right To Be Forgotten Might Be A
 Pandora's Box
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYq-+uD5-S-Rc54R8nan_9-i1s4KT5uKc3-93N9sqLy73g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYq-+uD5-S-Rc54R8nan_9-i1s4KT5uKc3-93N9sqLy73g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53B77AF0.6060709@itforchange.net>


While the privacy intentions of the ruling court may be well meaning, to 
me this is another example of private policing. How can google be taking 
such decisions even if just of interpreting the principles enunciated in 
the judgement, principles which in any case are too broad. And these 
decisions impact freedom of expression, and often public accountability 
of public actors. They may even impact the construction of public history.

The Internet calls for a new understanding of many jurisprudential 
issues, and perhaps new jurisprudential processes (without giving 
interested commercial parties judicial rights). This first of all 
requires a great depth and extent of public interest, 
non-commercial-actors-funded, research and non-commercial-actors-funded 
civil society work. Both are woefully lacking today.  And these of 
course working to feed a global platform for Internet related 
jurisprudence and policy, that itself is not commercial funding based. 
All these three requirements do not obtain today.

parminder



On Friday 04 July 2014 08:14 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> By Joséphine De Ruyck for Intellectual Property Watch
>
> Over the last few months, search engines around the world have been 
> keeping an active eye on the developments of the landmark case ruled 
> by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) requiring Google to consider 
> individuals’ requests to remove links that they say infringe on their 
> privacy.
>
> While this right to be forgotten is now recognised as a European 
> general principle by the ECJ, fears exist as to the larger worldwide 
> implications, especially for search engines as well as the public’s 
> right to access to information.
>
> [read on 
> <http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/07/04/the-european-right-to-be-forgotten-might-be-a-pandoras-box/?utm_source=IP-Watch+Subscribers&utm_campaign=851bcce52b-DAILY_SUMMARY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b78685696b-851bcce52b-352139001>]
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140705/3bd9392a/attachment.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 Jul  5 06:10:48 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:10:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost: The Right to Remember: A Speculative
 Community Informatics approach to "the Right to Be Forgotten"
References: <021e01cf9838$33146980$993d3c80$@gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <022101cf9839$65482b20$2fd88160$@gmail.com>

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/the-right-to-remember-a-speculative
-community-informatics-approach-to-the-right-to-be-forgotten/

http://tinyurl.com/ny32god

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Jul  5 08:27:18 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 07:27:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] The European Right To Be Forgotten Might Be A
 Pandora's Box
In-Reply-To: <53B77AF0.6060709@itforchange.net>
References: <CA+EjHYq-+uD5-S-Rc54R8nan_9-i1s4KT5uKc3-93N9sqLy73g@mail.gmail.com>
 <53B77AF0.6060709@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxivUXXys6noO_EEjv+VX=BpP+Rbo_HQ6+qgYFQtKH3Ltw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:11 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> While the privacy intentions of the ruling court may be well meaning, to me
> this is another example of private policing. How can google be taking such
> decisions even if just of interpreting the principles enunciated in the
> judgement, principles which in any case are too broad. And these decisions
> impact freedom of expression, and often public accountability of public
> actors. They may even impact the construction of public history.


You can't blame Google for implementing a legal decision.  If you want
to lay blame for this, the Court who ordered the implementation of
this nonsense is the place to begin.



-- 
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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Sun Jul  6 07:59:55 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 17:29:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: [Members] US District Court for DC -
 IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN
In-Reply-To: <53B928BE.3040603@itforchange.net>
References: <53B928BE.3040603@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53B93A3B.6090707@ITforChange.net>

I thought this posting on another list may be useful to the discussion 
on the IGC thread  "Some more legal tangles for ICANN"
regards,
Guru

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Members] US District Court for DC - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN
Date: 	Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:14:12 +0200
From: 	Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal 
<jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
Reply-To: 	members at justnetcoalition.org
To: 	Member Just_Net_Coalition <members at justnetcoalition.org>



Dear JNC members,

I thought I would wrap-up some facts and appreciation of a new case 
where Plaintiffs have requested the US District Court for the district 
of Columbia to turn to ICANN in order to seize whatever money, property, 
credit IRAN and Syria have at ICANN. This is a 'first', and worth to be 
looked at. Even though we are not legal expert for US law, it is a very 
interesting issue to look at in an Internet Governance perspective. Like 
anything related to US law and jurisdiction, this might take years 
before a conclusion can be reached -  right now these judgements have 
been made by default as Iran and Syria did not show up to the Court to 
defend themselves. Still the case is showing that the asymmetric role of 
the US in terms of Internet Governance is under critical challenge. It 
also shows that much of what is related to the management of the root 
zone (address book for the dot_something (.XYZ) is still missing 
international definition and agreements. This is part of the fact that 
IG has been into US hands, at least under the current form since 1998 
when ICANN was incorporated and when Jon Postel's job at the root zone 
level was doing until then through IANA was also transfer to ICANN under 
the same acronym. The new IANA became part of the ICANN that same year 
Being an 'authority' and a 'department' of ICANN, IANA has no bylaws but 
is under strict supervision of the US Department of Commerce, through 
NTIA. Nothing can be change at the root zone level for TLDs (gTLDs or 
ccTLDs) without the consent of the US DoC. This helps to understand by 
the same token the role of IANA, as a department of ICANN under a double 
US oversight, ICANN being itself under contract with the US DoC.

Some debate took place into the IGC list, and I would start from there.

1_
It started here
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/

2_
A subscriber to the Civil Society Governance Caucus- IGC elist (Joly 
McFie) wrote on June 25:

"ICANN licenses the TLDs to different world governments who then are 
permitted to appoint agents who sell the domain names and their country 
specific internet suffixes to individuals, businesses and organizations."

1/ Is this strictly true?
2/ Does ICANN have a licence over ccTLDs?

Some honorable subscribers of the IGC list reacted, among others:

 From Daniel Kalchev
/- most ccTLDs were delegated before ICANN was even an idea and most 
ccTLDs managers are in fact not been appointed by any government./
/- After all, Internet was, is and will be an worldwide private network./

 From Wolfgang Kleinwächter:
/- This is nonsense. The author of this piece does not understand, how 
the DNS works. /

 From McTim:
/- This won't go anywhere... Just a lawyer trying to get attention for 
his case./
/- The fees paid to ICANN from Iran are exactly zero./
/
/
3_
/
Then I posted On June 28 to the same IGC list the following information:

Here are the 6 "Writs of Attachment 
<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_dOI5puxRA9M3hweE9Eel9mVTQ/edit?pli=1>" (5 
  vs IRAN; 1 vs Syria) as of June 24, 2014, notified to ICANN/IANA by 
the US District Court for the District of Columbia.


So no "if" and no "apparently" as some doubted on the list.

4_
There would be postings with opposing views, ones saying that there was 
nothing to worry about - ICANN would simply answer 'no'- and others 
saying that this was critical issue for the first-level domain for 
countries (ccTLD: country-code for Top Level Domain).


5_
/
First, to be frank,  I would say that I was a bit disappointed with the 
comments on the IGC list. Some participants were supposedly able to 
provide a better perspective on the case. For example, /
I believe that Wolfgang Kleinwächter, specially since he is working at 
ICANN, should have provided a better answer to Joly's question. "Non 
sense" means little if nothing. Sharing and distributing understanding 
is always worth the effort.
/
/

Daniel is quite right in his first assumption (Jon Postel did most of 
the delegation work prior to the NewCo ICANN/IANA, established in 1998). 
I would not be overly certain that the majority of ccTLDs mangers are 
not being appointed by governments. That could be investigated. A ccTLD 
being considered by governments as part of their "national sovereignty" 
I would challenge this assertion. National realities are often more 
subtile. More of a concern in my view is Daniel's idea of a "*worldwide 
private network*". This has little if no reality. Networks belong to 
Telecom Operators for the largest part, some being *public*, some 
*private* (under governmental regulations). Autonomous Systems do also 
belong to *public* or *private* entities. What can be seen as 
*worldwide* is "*interconnectivity*" - one can say that nobody owns the 
Interconnectivity, something essentially untrue when we speak of 
'Internet'. A "*private*" thing? I do not see anything else than a 
*public space* here, where *private* *interests* might indeed be *dominant*.

McTim underestimates the "where" the Court request is leading. A simple 
"no" by ICANN/IANA/NTIA would not be the end for the US District Court 
to act.
McTim is right about the fact that Iran and Syria pay no fees to ICANN, 
but still this does not evacuate the idea, as per the Court appreciation 
and own view, that a ccTLD has great value. McTim has acknowledged this 
fact.

Back to Joly's "ICANN Licenses the ccTLDS..." Strictly true? ICANN 
having a license over ccTLDs

IANA, which is not an incorporate non profit, is a "/department of 
ICANN/". It is an 'authority' with no legal ground, no bylaws in the US, 
nor any International recognition. Still it has quite many 
responsibilities. One major constraint for ICANN/IANA regarding the root 
zone is that nothing can be changed in the root zone file without an 
approval by DoC (through NTIA).
The new IANA (part of the new ICANN) has taken over the continuity of 
handling the delegation 
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en> of the 
ccTLDs to registries since Jon Postel died in 1998, days before ICANN 
was incorporated with Vint Cerf as first president. By then IANA was 
funded by the US Department of Defense. We should all remember that 
Postel came to Geneva in 1997 where he intended to establish a non 
profit, with an international recognition from governments, a non profit 
that would handle the civilian root zone for the planet. His project was 
opposed by US diplomats in Geneva at the time.

So to anwser Joly: *Yes, IANA, a department of ICANN delegates (the verb 
to license would not be strictly right) each ccTLD to a unique 
entity/registry, but only after the US DoC approval. IANA is also 
responsible for re-delegation.*

In the case of IRAN, the unique registry that has received the 
delegation to handle the ".IR" ccTLD is THE INSTITUTE for RESEARCH in 
FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCES, based in IRAN, and affiliated with the Iranian 
Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology founded in 1989 under the 
name of INSTITUTE for STUDIES in THEORETICAL PHYSICS and MATHEMATICS - 
this tends to document the fact that the registry for .IR 
is legitimate part of the state of IRAN. What can the US District Court 
do about this? Ask for the plaintiffs to become the unique registry for 
.IR? The new registry would then earn money thanks to the Iranian 
registrars that would keep using the .IR. Not a bad deal.

What would IANA consider as a possible reason to terminate the 
delegation of the .IR? If we look at what ICANN considers as a possible 
reason to terminate a registrar accreditation agreement 
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-agreement-2009-05-21-en> (see 
5.3 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, even though it does not 
seem to have its equivalent with registries). But who said that this 
could not happen when it comes to a registry issue? Again, in the 
absence of an international treaty clarifying many obscure points in 
terms of root zone policy, the many vacuums could be of great amusement 
to a US District Court. Again, that brings a very serious challenge to 
the global, transnational governance of the Internet. ICANN is now in a 
poor situation. Would ICANN give way to the US District Court request, 
many countries would take the opportunity to fully challenge ICANN in 
its fundaments. Would ICANN pass the hot potato to someone else (US DoC? 
IRFS, the Iranian registry? Nobody?) the Court might not like that 
answer, and might threatened ICANN to comply. We'll see.

Still we have a pending question: what difference should be made between 
"to license" and "to delegate" a ccTLD?

Nobody really owns a domain name, and there are many indications that it 
could considered in the same way for TLDs. A TLD or domain name 
'holder'/'tenant' pays a 'lease' for a domain. If the .COM is the 
property of ICANN or DoC, then .IR would then be the property of its 
current tenant. As with any lease, it can end if not renewed or be 
terminated by the delegating authority (if nobody is ultimate owner). So 
we definitely have a situation that isnot clear, as a domain name is 
still not a property but holds intellectual property rights, turning it 
into a very valuable asset. You do not own the domain, you own the right 
to use it. This still means that any TLD has a commercial value, 
including ccTLDs, and is therefore an asset and subject to a Court 
sequestration warrant or redelegation request. And in this case, the 
judge is not asking for the moon, I would say.

Here is an excellent work funded by the US National Science Foundation 
and ITU related to "Policy, Business, Technical and Operational 
Considerations for the Management of a country code Top Level Domain 
(ccTLD) drafted in 2008. It is an interesting document 
<http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/ip/docs/itu-draft-cctld-guide.pdf>.

Regarding a possible redelegation, read what 
<http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf> happened to 
the .IQ (IRAK) in 2005. It's a IANA report worth to read. See again the 
role played by the US DoC and NTIA. Without putting in a US District Court.

All of that is not limited to the respective unique registries for IRAN 
and SYRIA (both countries are concerned with the US District Court of 
Columbia writs). The Writ has no limitation, quite to the contrary. Who 
said that the link between Iranian registrars and ICANN did not exist. 
  There are much more than the first-level domain (ccTLD) to be 
considered such as the second-level domain registration by 
registrars. What's about IPs? All of that enters into IANA, a department 
of ICANN, duties and performance.

So apart from trying to predict with little to no chance the outcomes 
for this case, we see that in this situation the current state of 
Internet Governance is far from comfortable. So a lot of work to be 
done. Again we see that without clear definition, and international 
agreements, it will be difficult to find trust, clarity and democratic 
values.

Comments are very welcome.

Thanks
/
Jean-Christophe Nothias

/Chief Strategist,/
/Contents and Projects
/
(+41) 79 265 92 75
jc.nothias at globalgeneva.net <mailto:jc.nothias at globalgeneva.net>
@jc_nothias

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140706/d3f2143c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 24186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140706/d3f2143c/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul  6 10:18:56 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 09:18:56 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: [Members] US District Court for DC
 - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN
In-Reply-To: <53B93A3B.6090707@ITforChange.net>
References: <53B928BE.3040603@itforchange.net> <53B93A3B.6090707@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxj0-Pi7CGmSbJowEC7cRPRBKnpKGKWoi=CDhVtJaN33mA@mail.gmail.com>

Guru,

You would best take JC's "facts" with a grain of salt.

I will attempt to point out his major errors, having no time for the minor
ones.




On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  I thought this posting on another list may be useful to the discussion on
> the IGC thread  "Some more legal tangles for ICANN"
> regards,
> Guru
>
> -------- Original Message --------  Subject: [Members] US District Court
> for DC - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN  Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:14:12 +0200  From: Jean-Christophe
> NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
> <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>  Reply-To: members at justnetcoalition.org  To:
> Member Just_Net_Coalition <members at justnetcoalition.org>
> <members at justnetcoalition.org>
>
> Dear JNC members,
>
>  I thought I would wrap-up some facts and appreciation of a new case
> where Plaintiffs have requested the US District Court for the district of
> Columbia to turn to ICANN in order to seize whatever money, property,
> credit IRAN and Syria have at ICANN. This is a 'first', and worth to be
> looked at. Even though we are not legal expert for US law, it is a very
> interesting issue to look at in an Internet Governance perspective. Like
> anything related to US law and jurisdiction, this might take years before a
> conclusion can be reached -  right now these judgements have been made by
> default as Iran and Syria did not show up to the Court to defend
> themselves. Still the case is showing that the asymmetric role of the US in
> terms of Internet Governance is under critical challenge. It also shows
> that much of what is related to the management of the root zone (address
> book for the dot_something (.XYZ) is still missing international definition
> and agreements. This is part of the fact that IG has been into US hands
>


Only a small corner of IG.  The first big case of this nature was due to a
French court decision many years ago. (France v. Yahoo IIRC).  That case
had a much larger impact on the Internet than the current case ever will.




> , at least under the current form since 1998 when ICANN was incorporated
> and when Jon Postel's job at the root zone level was doing until then
> through IANA was also transfer to ICANN under the same acronym. The new
> IANA became part of the ICANN that same year Being an 'authority' and a
> 'department' of ICANN, IANA has no bylaws but is under strict supervision
> of the US Department of Commerce, through NTIA. Nothing can be change at
> the root zone level for TLDs (gTLDs or ccTLDs) without the consent of the
> US DoC. This helps to understand by the same token the role of IANA, as a
> department of ICANN under a double US oversight, ICANN being itself under
> contract with the US DoC.
>

It's only one oversight, the IANA authorisation role is part of the
contract.


>
>  Some debate took place into the IGC list, and I would start from there.
>
>  1_
> It started here
>
> http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/
>
>  2_
> A subscriber to the Civil Society Governance Caucus- IGC elist (Joly
> McFie) wrote on June 25:
>
>  "ICANN licenses the TLDs to different world governments who then are
> permitted to appoint agents who sell the domain names and their country
> specific internet suffixes to individuals, businesses and organizations."
>
> 1/ Is this strictly true?
> 2/ Does ICANN have a licence over ccTLDs?
>
>  Some honorable subscribers of the IGC list reacted, among others:
>
>  From Daniel Kalchev
> * - most ccTLDs were delegated before ICANN was even an idea and most
> ccTLDs managers are in fact not been appointed by any government.*
> * - After all, Internet was, is and will be an worldwide private network.*
>
>  From Wolfgang Kleinwächter:
> * - This is nonsense. The author of this piece does not understand, how
> the DNS works. *
>
>  From McTim:
> * - This won't go anywhere... Just a lawyer trying to get attention for
> his case.*
> * - The fees paid to ICANN from Iran are exactly zero.*
>
>  3_
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * Then I posted On June 28 to the same IGC list the following information:
> Here are the 6 "Writs of Attachment
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_dOI5puxRA9M3hweE9Eel9mVTQ/edit?pli=1>"
> (5  vs IRAN; 1 vs Syria) as of June 24, 2014, notified to ICANN/IANA by the
> US District Court for the District of Columbia. So no "if" and no
> "apparently" as some doubted on the list. 4_ There would be postings with
> opposing views, ones saying that there was nothing to worry about - ICANN
> would simply answer 'no'- and others saying that this was critical issue
> for the first-level domain for countries (ccTLD: country-code for Top Level
> Domain). 5_ First, to be frank,  I would say that I was a bit disappointed
> with the comments on the IGC list. Some participants were supposedly able
> to provide a better perspective on the case. For example,  I believe that
> Wolfgang Kleinwächter, specially since he is working at ICANN, should have
> provided a better answer to Joly's question. "Non sense" means little if
> nothing. Sharing and distributing understanding is always worth the effort.*
>

I'm trying, but JC doesn't seem to want to understand the facts unless they
conform to his world view.


>
> * Daniel is quite right in his first assumption (Jon Postel did most of
> the delegation work prior to the NewCo ICANN/IANA, established in 1998). I
> would not be overly certain that the majority of ccTLDs mangers are not
> being appointed by governments. That could be investigated. A ccTLD being
> considered by governments as part of their "national sovereignty" I would
> challenge this assertion. *
>


Gov'ts do think they have "sovereignty" over their ccTLD, in some cases
they do not.




> * National realities are often more subtile. More of a concern in my view
> is Daniel's idea of a "worldwide private network". This has little if no
> reality. Networks belong to Telecom Operators for the largest part, some
> being public, some private (under governmental regulations). Autonomous
> Systems do also belong to public or private entities. What can be seen
> as worldwide is "interconnectivity" - one can say that nobody owns the
> Interconnectivity*
>

Sure they do.  Interconnects are overwhelmingly done by private parties,
not public authorities.



>
> * , something essentially untrue when we speak of 'Internet'. A "private"
> thing? I do not see anything else than a public space here,
> where private interests might indeed be dominant. McTim underestimates the
> "where" the Court request is leading. A simple "no" by ICANN/IANA/NTIA
> would not be the end for the US District Court to act.  McTim is right
> about the fact that Iran and Syria pay no fees to ICANN, but still this
> does not evacuate the idea, as per the Court appreciation and own view,
> that a ccTLD has great value. McTim has acknowledged this fact.*
>

This doesn't mean that the .ir zone is the "property" of the Islamic
Republic.




>
>
> * Back to Joly's "ICANN Licenses the ccTLDS..." Strictly true? ICANN
> having a license over ccTLDs IANA, which is not an incorporate non profit,
> is a "department of ICANN".*
>

It is a "function" that ICANN carries out.



> * It is an 'authority' with no legal ground, no bylaws in the US, nor any
> International recognition. Still it has quite many responsibilities. One
> major constraint for ICANN/IANA regarding the root zone is that nothing can
> be changed in the root zone file without an approval by DoC (through NTIA).*
>


He conveniently forgets this will go away sometime around September.




>
> * The new IANA (part of the new ICANN) has taken over the continuity of
> handling the delegation
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en> of the
> ccTLDs to registries since Jon Postel died in 1998, days before ICANN was
> incorporated with Vint Cerf as first president. By then IANA was funded by
> the US Department of Defense. We should all remember that Postel came to
> Geneva in 1997 where he intended to establish a non profit, with an
> international recognition from governments, a non profit that would handle
> the civilian root zone for the planet. His project was opposed by US
> diplomats in Geneva at the time. So to anwser Joly: Yes, IANA, a department
> of ICANN delegates (the verb to license would not be strictly right) each
> ccTLD to a unique entity/registry, but only after the US DoC approval. *
>

Ummm, they are all already delegated.



> *IANA is also responsible for re-delegation.*
>


true enough.



>
> * In the case of IRAN, the unique registry that has received the
> delegation to handle the ".IR" ccTLD is THE INSTITUTE for RESEARCH in
> FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCES, based in IRAN, and affiliated with the Iranian
> Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology founded in 1989 under the
> name of INSTITUTE for STUDIES in THEORETICAL PHYSICS and MATHEMATICS - this
> tends to document the fact that the registry for .IR is legitimate part of
> the state of IRAN.*
>

I think this is debatable.



> * What can the US District Court do about this? Ask for the plaintiffs to
> become the unique registry for .IR?*
>


They probably could, bu they didn't.

If they did, they wouldn't succeed.




> * The new registry would then earn money thanks to the Iranian registrars
> that would keep using the .IR. Not a bad deal.*
>

I don't thinkthe .ir zone is a big money spinner.  Very few ccTLDs are,
except for the big ones.


>
>
> * What would IANA consider as a possible reason to terminate the
> delegation of the .IR?*
>

https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation




> * If we look at what ICANN considers as a possible reason to terminate a
> registrar accreditation agreement
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-agreement-2009-05-21-en> (see 5.3
> of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, even though it does not seem to
> have its equivalent with registries).*
>


There are 2 types of Registries.  Generic TLDs each have a contract with
ICANN.

ccTLDs generally do not, although some have signed MoU's.




> * But who said that this could not happen when it comes to a registry
> issue?*
>


No one has ever said that.  It has always been the case that a Registry can
have a TLD removed from it's stewardship, this applies to ccTLDs and gTLDs.



> * Again, in the absence of an international treaty clarifying many obscure
> points in terms of root zone policy, the many vacuums could be of great
> amusement to a US District Court.*
>

Even if there was a Treaty, I doubt the US would sign on to it (witness the
ITRs), so a US District Court wouldn't worry about such a Treaty.



> * Again, that brings a very serious challenge to the global, transnational
> governance of the Internet. *
>


No, it doesn't.  This is what WK was, I think, meaning when he said it was
nonsense.  the nonsense is the tempest being made in a teapot.





> * ICANN is now in a poor situation.*
>


Umm ICANN is in a GREAT position.  it is largely managing the transition of
itself away from US oversight.  It is "writing it's own ticket"



> * Would ICANN give way to the US District Court request, many countries
> would take the opportunity to fully challenge ICANN in its fundaments.
> Would ICANN pass the hot potato to someone else (US DoC? IRFS, the Iranian
> registry? Nobody?) the Court might not like that answer, and might
> threatened ICANN to comply. We'll see.*
>


yes, we shall.



>
> * Still we have a pending question: what difference should be made between
> "to license" and "to delegate" a ccTLD? *
>

The word license is not used in Registry Agreements for new gTLDs to
describe the relationship between the TLD and ICANN.  The word delegation
is, in other words, there is no pending question.



>
> * Nobody really owns a domain name, and there are many indications that it
> could considered in the same way for TLDs. A TLD or domain name
> 'holder'/'tenant' pays a 'lease' for a domain.*
>

correct.



> * If the .COM is the property of ICANN or DoC, then .IR would then be the
> property of its current tenant. *
>

This sentence contradicts the previous one.  .com is neither the "property"
of either DoC or ICANN.



> * As with any lease, it can end if not renewed or be terminated by the
> delegating authority (if nobody is ultimate owner). So we definitely have a
> situation that isnot clear, as a domain name is still not a property but
> holds intellectual property rights, turning it into a very valuable asset.
> You do not own the domain, you own the right to use it. This still means
> that any TLD has a commercial value, including ccTLDs, and is therefore an
> asset and subject to a Court sequestration warrant or redelegation request.
> And in this case, the judge is not asking for the moon, I would say.*
>


A. the Court is not asking for re-delegation

B. if I rent a car, it is useful to me and therefore an "asset" in terms of
getting things done, but not an "asset" in terms of property.  A Court,
can't "seize" a car I've rented, as it is not my property.




>
>
>
> * Here is an excellent work funded by the US National Science Foundation
> and ITU related to "Policy, Business, Technical and Operational
> Considerations for the Management of a country code Top Level Domain
> (ccTLD) drafted in 2008. It is an interesting document
> <http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/ip/docs/itu-draft-cctld-guide.pdf>. Regarding
> a possible redelegation, read what
> <http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf> happened to the
> .IQ (IRAK) in 2005. It's a IANA report worth to read. See again the role
> played by the US DoC and NTIA. Without putting in a US District Court. All
> of that is not limited to the respective unique registries for IRAN and
> SYRIA (both countries are concerned with the US District Court of Columbia
> writs). The Writ has no limitation, quite to the contrary.*
>


If you read the Writ, it asks very specific limited questions.



> * Who said that the link between Iranian registrars and ICANN did not
> exist.*
>

If they are ICANN accredited,of course there is a link, but that is a
complete non-sequitur.



> *  There are much more than the first-level domain (ccTLD) to be
> considered such as the second-level domain registration by registrars.*
>

Why?  Is it the case that ccTLD Registrars pay monies to ICANN for 2nd
level registrations??  I have never heard of this.



> *  What's about IPs? All of that enters into IANA, a department of ICANN,
> duties and performance.*
>


No, it doesn't.  IANA doesn't Allocate IP addresses to IRAN.  they may have
done 20 years ago, but they did not recieve money for doing so, and in any
case, those IP address Allocations are now in the RIPE database, which is
under the auspices of a Dutch non-p[rofit.


--
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140706/e676672e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 24186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140706/e676672e/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul  6 11:13:41 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 11:13:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: [Members] US District Court for DC
 - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxj0-Pi7CGmSbJowEC7cRPRBKnpKGKWoi=CDhVtJaN33mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53B928BE.3040603@itforchange.net> <53B93A3B.6090707@ITforChange.net> <CACAaNxj0-Pi7CGmSbJowEC7cRPRBKnpKGKWoi=CDhVtJaN33mA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53B967A5.5090002@acm.org>



On 06-Jul-14 10:18, McTim wrote:
> /
> 
> IANA, which is not an incorporate non profit, is a "/department of 
> ICANN/". /
> 
> 
> It is a "function" that ICANN carries out.

And it is one that could be moved elsewhere under current contract and
practice.

A fact that will hopefully remain true after the transition.

> He conveniently forgets this will go away sometime around September.

May go away.  and September next year, not this year.

> 
> If the .COM is the property of ICANN or DoC, then .IR would then be
> the property of its current tenant.
> 
> 
> This sentence contradicts the previous one.  .com is neither the
> "property" of either DoC or ICANN.
> 

yet it is subject to contract and contract renewal.  And while there is
a presumption of renewal, there is not a certainly of renewal.

avri








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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jul  6 12:26:38 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:56:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] corporates and ethics
Message-ID: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net>

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/06/we-shouldnt-expect-facebook-to-behave-ethically?CMP=fb_gu

"Besides, the idea that corporations might behave ethically is as absurd 
as the proposition that cats should respect the rights of small mammals. 
Cats do what cats do: kill other creatures. Corporations do what 
corporations do: maximise revenues and shareholder value and stay within 
the law. Facebook may be on the extreme end of corporate sociopathy, but 
really it's just the exception that proves the rule."

(quote ends)

Well, if I had said these sentences, there would have been an immediate 
multistakeholder (MS) condemnation, for not conforming to the 
multi-stakeholder spirit!

It is these corporations that are to sought to be given special 
political rights by the 'equal footing' MS brigade, to be on the policy 
making table and making political decisions, for all of us. ...  The US 
public, and its civil society organisations, are still reeling under the 
impact of the US court ruling to allow unlimited corporate contribution 
to campaign financing, on the basis of a novel political construction 
that corporates have the right to freedom of expression, which cannot be 
diluted under the first amendment. This judgement, many in the US and 
abroad feel, is having the impact of spinning US politics so much away 
from its democratic foundation that soon it may be difficult to consider 
US as a really working democracy.

But that 'novel political construction' of allowing corporates to have 
human rights was nothing. The 'equal footing' MSists go much much 
further; they want corporates to have voting rights and decision making 
powers for public policy matters. The rest of world has simply not waken 
up to this demon, which is making slow but serious progress, although 
somewhat clandestinely, against the values and institutions of democracy.

parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140706/cf6933db/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Sun Jul  6 12:34:32 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 22:04:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] corporates and ethics
In-Reply-To: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net>
References: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <17817107-E06F-4375-9F9F-9B4EC9AC6359@hserus.net>

The very same thing might apply to some individuals, academia, even, quelle horror, some civil society outfits.

Giving any of them multistakeholder rights strikes me as a complete waste of time, but well, they are there and they do have as many rights as the facebooks of the world do.

--srs (iPad)

> On 06-Jul-2014, at 21:56, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/06/we-shouldnt-expect-facebook-to-behave-ethically?CMP=fb_gu
> 
> "Besides, the idea that corporations might behave ethically is as absurd as the proposition that cats should respect the rights of small mammals. Cats do what cats do: kill other creatures. Corporations do what corporations do: maximise revenues and shareholder value and stay within the law. Facebook may be on the extreme end of corporate sociopathy, but really it's just the exception that proves the rule."
> 
> (quote ends)
> 
> Well, if I had said these sentences, there would have been an immediate multistakeholder (MS) condemnation, for not conforming to the multi-stakeholder spirit!
> 
> It is these corporations that are to sought to be given special political rights by the 'equal footing' MS brigade, to be on the policy making table and making political decisions, for all of us. ...  The US public, and its civil society organisations, are still reeling under the impact of the US court ruling to allow unlimited corporate contribution to campaign financing, on the basis of a novel political construction that corporates have the right to freedom of expression, which cannot be diluted under the first amendment. This judgement, many in the US and abroad feel, is having the impact of spinning US politics so much away from its democratic foundation that soon it may be difficult to consider US as a really working democracy. 
> 
> But that 'novel political construction' of allowing corporates to have human rights was nothing. The 'equal footing' MSists go much much further; they want corporates to have voting rights and decision making powers for public policy matters. The rest of world has simply not waken up to this demon, which is making slow but serious progress, although somewhat clandestinely, against the values and institutions of democracy.  
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140706/be1edfc9/attachment.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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Sun Jul  6 14:45:33 2014
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 14:45:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] corporates and ethics
In-Reply-To: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net>
References: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwqvukAfsVambYEyLv8_+4OjSqbQqvVgz_AhpeVNAfB0w@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/06/we-shouldnt-expect-facebook-to-behave-ethically?CMP=fb_gu
>
> "Besides, the idea that corporations might behave ethically is as absurd as
> the proposition that cats should respect the rights of small mammals. Cats
> do what cats do: kill other creatures. Corporations do what corporations do:
> maximise revenues and shareholder value and stay within the law. Facebook
> may be on the extreme end of corporate sociopathy, but really it's just the
> exception that proves the rule."
>
> (quote ends)
>
> Well, if I had said these sentences, there would have been an immediate
> multistakeholder (MS) condemnation, for not conforming to the
> multi-stakeholder spirit!


I posted the following comments on another list a little while back to
describe the problems of even applying multistakeholderism in the
international arena:


Brian Carpenter posed the question pasted below on the ietf discussion
list.  My (verbose) comments on the thread may help get a handle on
the limits of multistakeholderism in the international context, which
requires understanding democracy not in terms of the regular
representational and/or participatory aspects, but key elements of the
foundation that makes it work.  It addresses the present DMARC
imbroglio triggered by Yahoo and a few other industry cohorts.  Read
through the thread for the fuller explanation.


Seth


On Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

    I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry
    was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to
    some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible.

    Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now?

    Regards
       Brian


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>


Jimmy Wales is, perhaps partially unconsciously, referencing this with
his point on a "culture of free expression."

Note: I am not implying in making these observations that stewardship
should be by any particular country, or any number less than the
totality for that matter -- only that we rely on systems that we have
claimed for the people to create such a context, and the international
arena (and the various systems so far presented for "checks and
balances" or even simply handoff to privatized systems to
multistakeholder-ish processes that must not be government-led or
inter-governmental) does not presently support that.


Seth


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (one insert/correction inline)
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The framework internationally is different.  Within free countries, there's a culture of expectations that certain things will be unacceptable, or will be resisted by self-respecting citizens.  That culture is based in a system that guards fundamental liberties, and people are able to rely on it to do so, though for private firms the limits aren't so definitive as they are for the government.
>>
>> Internationally, the limits are no longer so definitive, and that's because even though governments will sign onto instruments like the UDHR, those rights are not actually fundamental, even if we call them that.  Fundamental rights have an undeniable priority within countries where they have been claimed in the founding act.  On that foundation, judges are always obliged to assess fundamental rights in light of the unarguable fact that their priority over the government was part of the original creation of the whole system.  There's no founding act in the international arena that sets the priority of people over the governments of the world, so rights are actually at the indulgence of governments, and governments can always assert their state interests are so important that they warrant impinging on fundamental liberties.
>>
>> We just saw an example of this with the Snowden disclosures.  We've been through a long period where we couldn't get our government to actually do much for us, or conversely to not invade our liberties -- because the claims that the government was snooping pervasively were kept marginal in various ways.
>
>
> <fixed>
>>
>> But once documentation moved those considerations out of the frame of "conspiracy" or zealotry by activist organizations, we suddenly began seeing the appeals work again: "that's not the kind of country we are, what we set up for ourselves," we started saying again.
>
> </fixed>
>
> (eom)
>
>>
>> And while it's still in a bit of denial, we are seeing a gradual grudging retracting -- again, because the basis in fundamental liberties is unarguably related to how we set the government up in the founding act(s).
>>
>> This is for governments and the more definitive relationship between fundamental liberties and the government; that is, that they are limits on the government.  The judicial system treats fundamental rights violations by the government in terms of "strict scrutiny," which means a governmental act that impinges on fundamental liberties must serve a compelling state interest, and even then, must be narrowly tailored.  For private parties, it's more that the working system creates a culture of people who enjoy this ability to live in a system where these limits on the government are actually at play -- and that's a context that more easily supports attitudes of resistance and pushback from people who see their dignity invaded by private firms that do excessive things.
>>
>> None of this exists internationally.  The best you can place some faint hope in is that national/state interests will be "balanced" against rights expressed in a treaty.  That's a totally different standard from strict scrutiny.  And relying on even that is unrealistic, because governments have the "epistemic priority" -- and so they often, quite freely, simply claim their sovereignty and act according to what they claim is an important state interest.  They simply have that wherewithal at the international level.
>>
>> All of which is preface to say that the result is that governments and private parties (and corporations, who have concocted trans-state "rights" through judges acting to fill in gaps in the law over the years) know the rules don't apply the same way in the international arena.
>>
>> In fact, given the transitions currently being attempted, whether with the IANA functions or "Internet governance" more generally, Yahoo's DMARC behavior may really be a sort of dry run, testing the ability to take advantage of the moves to put concerns related to the operation of the Internet into an international frame, which folks are pushing for without really recognizing what's missing in that context, what they have sort of unconsciously relied on and taken for granted within systems of checks and balances that are rooted solidly at national levels.
>>
>> The checks and balances don't work the same internationally, and that circumstance can be exploited (and is, all the time, these days).
>>
>> People might push back, but they don't really do so with the same sense of fundamental recourse assured by a solidly rooted system.  And Yahoo knows this.  And we're just shoring that up by saying we can just switch multistakeholderism to the international arena.
>>
>> (All of this is aside from other factors not generally acknowledged -- that there are actually inter-governmentally endorsed frames in place that will have a bearing on IANA type functions or domain names (Names, Numbers, Addresses and Identifiers/NNAI, in the ITU parlance), regardless of the fact the IANA transition defines itself as non-governmentally-led or inter-governmental.  Looking at this in that light, Yahoo may be forcing the creation of a context in which it can start to exercise those frameworks.)
>>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Important business users, with Yahoo accounts?  Is that a joke?
>>>
>>> Just as a reference point:
>>> - I just logged into my long-unused, and un-publicized yahoo email account - and the only thing there is Spam
>>> - the lion's share of mail that comes from yahoo, to my normal account, is spam
>>> - unfortunately, a good number of people on the email lists that I run seem to have Yahoo mail accounts - and a good amount of the mail that comes from those accounts is... you guessed it... spam - because yahoo email accounts seem to be vulnerable to cracking and exploitation
>>>
>>> So, just who is it that Yahoo is protecting here?
>>>
>>>
>>> Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The standard procedure in many companies is business scoped, so they identify important business users and the business returns/damages. Most important users are not IT experts, and use email for personal exchange. Yahoo has signed an agreement with users to protect its information system, so all seem to follow that, and all users are free to stop using services or not.
>>>>
>>>> AB
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry
>>>>     was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to
>>>>     some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>>     Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now?
>>>>
>>>>     Regards
>>>>        Brian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul  6 20:42:44 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 06:12:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] corporates and ethics
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBwqvukAfsVambYEyLv8_+4OjSqbQqvVgz_AhpeVNAfB0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net> <CAJkfFBwqvukAfsVambYEyLv8_+4OjSqbQqvVgz_AhpeVNAfB0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7FF63317-F54A-468A-B063-6277250B5F31@hserus.net>

Speaking of DMARC, and because I do run mail for rather a lot of millions of people in my day job, you might find that at this point, most providers who run large mailing list services, such as yahoo and google groups, and most large receiver ISPs that implement DMARC, have implemented a set of workarounds so that the already tiny minority of users affected is now infinitesimal (and yes, in hard numbers, still significant appearing, until you compare that number to yahoo's actual userbase)

Forwarding mailboxes are still a small fraction of all mail, with the bulk of it originating from some known large places (university alumni mailhosts, IEEE, some email providers that still offer forwarding ..).  Mailing lists that don't rewrite the return path appropriately are a still smaller number of all mail, gradually getting even smaller.

Meanwhile the amount of forged spam it has been stopping has been interestingly high, especially on an old and extremely heavily forged domain like yahoo. So this is kind of like a vote  in which the massively vast majority of yahoo's users that are benefited from this change (and yes, in my judgement this aggressive policy does have a benefit given the amount of forged yahoo.com spam I see) trump the minority that is affected by this - a rapidly reducing minority I might add.

Depending on your mail setup I would recommend - and these are best practices for other reasons too, not just dealing with yahoo and aol's p=reject DMARC implementation! one of these - http://dmarc.org/faq.html#s_3

Also if you operate a mailing list and haven't turned on VERP yet, now would be a great time http://www.exim.org/howto/mailman21.html

--srs (iPad)

> On 07-Jul-2014, at 0:15, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/06/we-shouldnt-expect-facebook-to-behave-ethically?CMP=fb_gu
>> 
>> "Besides, the idea that corporations might behave ethically is as absurd as
>> the proposition that cats should respect the rights of small mammals. Cats
>> do what cats do: kill other creatures. Corporations do what corporations do:
>> maximise revenues and shareholder value and stay within the law. Facebook
>> may be on the extreme end of corporate sociopathy, but really it's just the
>> exception that proves the rule."
>> 
>> (quote ends)
>> 
>> Well, if I had said these sentences, there would have been an immediate
>> multistakeholder (MS) condemnation, for not conforming to the
>> multi-stakeholder spirit!
> 
> 
> I posted the following comments on another list a little while back to
> describe the problems of even applying multistakeholderism in the
> international arena:
> 
> 
> Brian Carpenter posed the question pasted below on the ietf discussion
> list.  My (verbose) comments on the thread may help get a handle on
> the limits of multistakeholderism in the international context, which
> requires understanding democracy not in terms of the regular
> representational and/or participatory aspects, but key elements of the
> foundation that makes it work.  It addresses the present DMARC
> imbroglio triggered by Yahoo and a few other industry cohorts.  Read
> through the thread for the fuller explanation.
> 
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>    I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry
>    was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to
>    some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible.
> 
>    Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now?
> 
>    Regards
>       Brian
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:36 AM
> Subject: Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem
> To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
> Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
> 
> 
> Jimmy Wales is, perhaps partially unconsciously, referencing this with
> his point on a "culture of free expression."
> 
> Note: I am not implying in making these observations that stewardship
> should be by any particular country, or any number less than the
> totality for that matter -- only that we rely on systems that we have
> claimed for the people to create such a context, and the international
> arena (and the various systems so far presented for "checks and
> balances" or even simply handoff to privatized systems to
> multistakeholder-ish processes that must not be government-led or
> inter-governmental) does not presently support that.
> 
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> (one insert/correction inline)
>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The framework internationally is different.  Within free countries, there's a culture of expectations that certain things will be unacceptable, or will be resisted by self-respecting citizens.  That culture is based in a system that guards fundamental liberties, and people are able to rely on it to do so, though for private firms the limits aren't so definitive as they are for the government.
>>> 
>>> Internationally, the limits are no longer so definitive, and that's because even though governments will sign onto instruments like the UDHR, those rights are not actually fundamental, even if we call them that.  Fundamental rights have an undeniable priority within countries where they have been claimed in the founding act.  On that foundation, judges are always obliged to assess fundamental rights in light of the unarguable fact that their priority over the government was part of the original creation of the whole system.  There's no founding act in the international arena that sets the priority of people over the governments of the world, so rights are actually at the indulgence of governments, and governments can always assert their state interests are so important that they warrant impinging on fundamental liberties.
>>> 
>>> We just saw an example of this with the Snowden disclosures.  We've been through a long period where we couldn't get our government to actually do much for us, or conversely to not invade our liberties -- because the claims that the government was snooping pervasively were kept marginal in various ways.
>> 
>> 
>> <fixed>
>>> 
>>> But once documentation moved those considerations out of the frame of "conspiracy" or zealotry by activist organizations, we suddenly began seeing the appeals work again: "that's not the kind of country we are, what we set up for ourselves," we started saying again.
>> 
>> </fixed>
>> 
>> (eom)
>> 
>>> 
>>> And while it's still in a bit of denial, we are seeing a gradual grudging retracting -- again, because the basis in fundamental liberties is unarguably related to how we set the government up in the founding act(s).
>>> 
>>> This is for governments and the more definitive relationship between fundamental liberties and the government; that is, that they are limits on the government.  The judicial system treats fundamental rights violations by the government in terms of "strict scrutiny," which means a governmental act that impinges on fundamental liberties must serve a compelling state interest, and even then, must be narrowly tailored.  For private parties, it's more that the working system creates a culture of people who enjoy this ability to live in a system where these limits on the government are actually at play -- and that's a context that more easily supports attitudes of resistance and pushback from people who see their dignity invaded by private firms that do excessive things.
>>> 
>>> None of this exists internationally.  The best you can place some faint hope in is that national/state interests will be "balanced" against rights expressed in a treaty.  That's a totally different standard from strict scrutiny.  And relying on even that is unrealistic, because governments have the "epistemic priority" -- and so they often, quite freely, simply claim their sovereignty and act according to what they claim is an important state interest.  They simply have that wherewithal at the international level.
>>> 
>>> All of which is preface to say that the result is that governments and private parties (and corporations, who have concocted trans-state "rights" through judges acting to fill in gaps in the law over the years) know the rules don't apply the same way in the international arena.
>>> 
>>> In fact, given the transitions currently being attempted, whether with the IANA functions or "Internet governance" more generally, Yahoo's DMARC behavior may really be a sort of dry run, testing the ability to take advantage of the moves to put concerns related to the operation of the Internet into an international frame, which folks are pushing for without really recognizing what's missing in that context, what they have sort of unconsciously relied on and taken for granted within systems of checks and balances that are rooted solidly at national levels.
>>> 
>>> The checks and balances don't work the same internationally, and that circumstance can be exploited (and is, all the time, these days).
>>> 
>>> People might push back, but they don't really do so with the same sense of fundamental recourse assured by a solidly rooted system.  And Yahoo knows this.  And we're just shoring that up by saying we can just switch multistakeholderism to the international arena.
>>> 
>>> (All of this is aside from other factors not generally acknowledged -- that there are actually inter-governmentally endorsed frames in place that will have a bearing on IANA type functions or domain names (Names, Numbers, Addresses and Identifiers/NNAI, in the ITU parlance), regardless of the fact the IANA transition defines itself as non-governmentally-led or inter-governmental.  Looking at this in that light, Yahoo may be forcing the creation of a context in which it can start to exercise those frameworks.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Seth
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Important business users, with Yahoo accounts?  Is that a joke?
>>>> 
>>>> Just as a reference point:
>>>> - I just logged into my long-unused, and un-publicized yahoo email account - and the only thing there is Spam
>>>> - the lion's share of mail that comes from yahoo, to my normal account, is spam
>>>> - unfortunately, a good number of people on the email lists that I run seem to have Yahoo mail accounts - and a good amount of the mail that comes from those accounts is... you guessed it... spam - because yahoo email accounts seem to be vulnerable to cracking and exploitation
>>>> 
>>>> So, just who is it that Yahoo is protecting here?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The standard procedure in many companies is business scoped, so they identify important business users and the business returns/damages. Most important users are not IT experts, and use email for personal exchange. Yahoo has signed an agreement with users to protect its information system, so all seem to follow that, and all users are free to stop using services or not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> AB
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>    I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry
>>>>>    was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to
>>>>>    some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now?
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Regards
>>>>>       Brian
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/a9c185a8/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jul  7 01:14:50 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:44:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Members] Fwd: [Post 2015 Women's Coalition]
 Privatization of Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN
In-Reply-To: <53BA22FC.2010707@itforchange.net>
References: <53BA22FC.2010707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53BA2CCA.6040306@itforchange.net>


Well, I spoke too soon when I said in my last email "The rest of world 
has simply not waken up to this demon, which is making slow but serious 
progress, although somewhat clandestinely, against the values and 
institutions of democracy. "

  People outside the charmed IG circles are indeed now picking up the 
dangers of equal footing MSism as being a part of the neolib design to 
corporatize global governance. The cat, as they, is out of the bag... 
The civil society equal footing MS-ists would no longer be able to 
obfuscate their positions and pass off as mainstream civil society. They 
are not. Mainstream civil society is for democracy, and is extremely 
bothered about the new cult of TNCs dominating global governance spaces.

parminder


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Members] Fwd: [Post 2015 Women's Coalition] Privatization of 
Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN
Date: 	Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:03:00 +0530
From: 	anita <anita at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: 	members at justnetcoalition.org
To: 	members at justnetcoalition.org



The attached report starts powerfully,

"As globalization has compounded the power of large transnational 
corporations (TNCs) in recent decade, big
business has consolidated its influence on global governance and the 
United Nations in particular. In that multi-
lateral setting, corporate actors have been granted privileged access to 
decision-makers, and their interests have
become more prominent as calls for legally binding instruments for TNCs 
become more sidelined. In the ongoing
discussions towards a post-2015 sustainable development agenda, the 
private sector is positioning itself as the
solution to current global challenges â?? while simultaneously 
attempting in other fora to evade UN oversight and
regulation. The embrace of a voluntary â??partnershipâ?? approach has 
resulted in a corresponding shift towards a
multi-stakeholder governance paradigm â?? buoyed by big business and the 
governments invested in it1 â?? in the
World Economic Forum, the World Trade Organization, and the agencies and 
agendas of the UN."

It asserts that

"Labeling all actors stakeholders, as if all were equal and
had the same interest, obscures the power imbalances
between various sectors and the vast differences between
their agendas. It promotes a depoliticized model of govern-
ance that negates the different interests and power struc-
tures inherent in the global economic system."

and

I think the recommendations may be useful - for us to resonate the same 
message - albeit more contextually to the aims of JNC - and to 
contribute to their website our deconstructions of the state of play in 
the digital domain

"*Post-2015
»
Build an intergovernmental accountability framework in the post-2015 
agenda, with government-adopted
guidelines and government monitoring. House a monitoring and oversight 
hub for â??partnershipsâ?? within a
strong and effective High-Level Political Forum, tasked with monitoring 
the implementation of the post-2015
agenda.
Business and Human Rights
» Call for effective international regulation of TNCs through ensuring 
the establishment of an open-ended
  intergovernmental working group tasked with a draft mandate, in 
accordance with the recent resolution in the
 UN Human Rights Council (HRC).
» Strengthen the central role of the HRC in the business and human 
rights discourse, in recognition of its
  unique role to provide global leadership in human rights by 
strengthening standards and creating effective
 implementation and accountability mechanisms."


*anita*
*


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Post 2015 Women's Coalition] Privatization of Global 
Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN
Date: 	Sun, 6 Jul 2014 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: 	kathrynjtobin <kathrynjtobin at gmail.com>
To: 	post2015womenscoalition at googlegroups.com



Dear colleagues,

Global Policy Forum is pleased to share its new web portal on corporate 
influence at the UN, part of a broader research focus on the 
privatization of global governance. We have compiled recent GPF 
analysis, relevant UN documents, and an extensive listing of reports and 
articles by civil society organizations and think tanks, tracking the 
consolidation of corporate power in the multilateral setting. As this 
work illustrates, corporations and their proxies are transforming the 
discourse and/or blocking progressive outcomes in both the UN's 
sustainable development post-2015 agenda and the business and human 
rights processes, pushing (overtly and/or silently) for 
"multi-stakeholder" governance models and voluntary, non-binding 
corporate social responsibility commitments. Read more 
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/corporate-influence.html>Â on the history 
of corporate influence at the UN, its current manifestations, and GPF's 
recommendations on reversing the corporate capture of the UN.Â

GPF Briefing 1: Privatizing Global Governance: Corporate Influence at 
the United Nations 
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/GPFEurope/GPF__Briefing_1.pdf>Â
Global Policy Forum has undertaken significant research to track and 
chart the increasing power and influence of corporations in global 
governance settings, particularly the UN. We are pleased to share with 
you our new Briefing on Corporate Influence (attached), which includes 
main messages and recommendations.

Sign up <http://www.globalpolicy.org/newsletter-mm.html>Â to join the 
Global Policy Forum listserv.Â

Best,

*Kathryn (Katie) Tobin*
Global Policy Forum
kathryntobin at globalpolicy.org <mailto:kathryntobin at globalpolicy.org>
www.globalpolicy.org <http://www.globalpolicy.org/>Â
-- 
The Post_2015_Women's_Coalition listserv is a key communications 
platform for feminist, women's and social justice organizations working 
on women's rights and gender equality in the post 2015 sustainable 
development framework.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Post_2015_Women's_Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to post2015womenscoalition+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com 
<mailto:post2015womenscoalition+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
post2015womenscoalition at googlegroups.com 
<mailto:post2015womenscoalition at googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

<http://www.ITforChange.net/>*Anita Gurumurthy*| Executive Director
IT for Change <http://www.itforchange.net/>
(/In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)/
91-80-26654134 |Â T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055
Email:anita at itforchange.net

------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net 
<http://www.gender-is-citizenship.net>

/




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/56338193/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics1
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/56338193/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics2
Type: image/png
Size: 676 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/56338193/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics3
Type: image/png
Size: 298 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/56338193/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics4
Type: image/png
Size: 359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/56338193/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GPF__Briefing_1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 335379 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/56338193/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul  7 02:07:24 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:07:24 +1000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Members] Fwd: [Post 2015 Women's Coalition]
 Privatization of Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN
In-Reply-To: <53BA2CCA.6040306@itforchange.net>
References: <53BA22FC.2010707@itforchange.net> <53BA2CCA.6040306@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AD2A925CEF64442CAA5EAEC93A3C727C@Toshiba>

I am glad you posted this, Parminder. I particularly draw people’s attention to

"Labeling all actors stakeholders, as if all were equal and
had the same interest, obscures the power imbalances
between various sectors and the vast differences between
their agendas. It promotes a depoliticized model of govern-
ance that negates the different interests and power struc-
tures inherent in the global economic system."

I think the time might be ripe for civil society to talk about the limits to multistakeholderism – which I still personally believe has some value in some roles. I think we need to start to define where and how it is useful and where it poses dangers like those pointed out above.

In other words – I look forward to the debate moving beyond the “multistakeholder=good, multistakeholder=bad” divide to a sensible consideration as to how and where it might be useful in internet governance.

Ian Peter 

From: parminder 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 3:14 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Members] Fwd: [Post 2015 Women's Coalition] Privatization of Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN


Well, I spoke too soon when I said in my last email "The rest of world has simply not waken up to this demon, which is making slow but serious progress, although somewhat clandestinely, against the values and institutions of democracy. "

People outside the charmed IG circles are indeed now picking up the dangers of equal footing MSism as being a part of the neolib design to corporatize global governance. The cat, as they, is out of the bag... The civil society equal footing MS-ists would no longer be able to obfuscate their positions and pass off as mainstream civil society. They are not. Mainstream civil society is for democracy, and is extremely bothered about the new cult of TNCs dominating global governance spaces.

parminder 


-------- Original Message -------- Subject:  [Members] Fwd: [Post 2015 Women's Coalition] Privatization of Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN 
      Date:  Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:03:00 +0530 
      From:  anita mailto:anita at itforchange.net 
      Reply-To:  members at justnetcoalition.org 
      To:  members at justnetcoalition.org 


The attached report starts powerfully,

"As globalization has compounded the power of large transnational corporations (TNCs) in recent decade, big
business has consolidated its influence on global governance and the United Nations in particular. In that multi-
lateral setting, corporate actors have been granted privileged access to decision-makers, and their interests have
become more prominent as calls for legally binding instruments for TNCs become more sidelined. In the ongoing
discussions towards a post-2015 sustainable development agenda, the private sector is positioning itself as the
solution to current global challenges – while simultaneously attempting in other fora to evade UN oversight and
regulation. The embrace of a voluntary “partnership” approach has resulted in a corresponding shift towards a
multi-stakeholder governance paradigm – buoyed by big business and the governments invested in it1 – in the
World Economic Forum, the World Trade Organization, and the agencies and agendas of the UN."

It asserts that

"Labeling all actors stakeholders, as if all were equal and
had the same interest, obscures the power imbalances
between various sectors and the vast differences between
their agendas. It promotes a depoliticized model of govern-
ance that negates the different interests and power struc-
tures inherent in the global economic system."

and 

I think the recommendations may be useful - for us to resonate the same message - albeit more contextually to the aims of JNC - and to contribute to their website our deconstructions of the state of play in the digital domain

"Post-2015
»
Build an intergovernmental accountability framework in the post-2015 agenda, with government-adopted
guidelines and government monitoring. House a monitoring and oversight hub for “partnerships” within a
strong and effective High-Level Political Forum, tasked with monitoring the implementation of the post-2015
agenda.
Business and Human Rights
» Call for effective international regulation of TNCs through ensuring the establishment of an open-ended
  intergovernmental working group tasked with a draft mandate, in accordance with the recent resolution in the
 UN Human Rights Council (HRC).
» Strengthen the central role of the HRC in the business and human rights discourse, in recognition of its
  unique role to provide global leadership in human rights by strengthening standards and creating effective
 implementation and accountability mechanisms."


anita




-------- Original Message -------- Subject:  [Post 2015 Women's Coalition] Privatization of Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN 
      Date:  Sun, 6 Jul 2014 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT) 
      From:  kathrynjtobin mailto:kathrynjtobin at gmail.com 
      To:  post2015womenscoalition at googlegroups.com 



Dear colleagues,

Global Policy Forum is pleased to share its new web portal on corporate influence at the UN, part of a broader research focus on the privatization of global governance. We have compiled recent GPF analysis, relevant UN documents, and an extensive listing of reports and articles by civil society organizations and think tanks, tracking the consolidation of corporate power in the multilateral setting. As this work illustrates, corporations and their proxies are transforming the discourse and/or blocking progressive outcomes in both the UN's sustainable development post-2015 agenda and the business and human rights processes, pushing (overtly and/or silently) for "multi-stakeholder" governance models and voluntary, non-binding corporate social responsibility commitments. Read more on the history of corporate influence at the UN, its current manifestations, and GPF's recommendations on reversing the corporate capture of the UN. 

GPF Briefing 1: Privatizing Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the United Nations 
Global Policy Forum has undertaken significant research to track and chart the increasing power and influence of corporations in global governance settings, particularly the UN. We are pleased to share with you our new Briefing on Corporate Influence (attached), which includes main messages and recommendations.

Sign up to join the Global Policy Forum listserv. 

Best,

Kathryn (Katie) Tobin
Global Policy Forum
kathryntobin at globalpolicy.org
www.globalpolicy.org  

-- 
The Post_2015_Women's_Coalition listserv is a key communications platform for feminist, women's and social justice organizations working on women's rights and gender equality in the post 2015 sustainable development framework.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Post_2015_Women's_Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to post2015womenscoalition+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to post2015womenscoalition at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 

Anita Gurumurthy | Executive Director
IT for Change
(In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)
 91-80-26654134 |Â  T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055
Email:anita at itforchange.net


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net 










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/4eb50957/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics1
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/4eb50957/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics2
Type: image/png
Size: 676 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/4eb50957/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics3
Type: image/png
Size: 298 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/4eb50957/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics4
Type: image/png
Size: 359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/4eb50957/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Mon Jul  7 05:58:49 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 09:58:49 +0000
Subject: [governance] Practical notes: Africa Internet Governance Forum -
 Abuja. July 10 - 12.
Message-ID: <CADFgh123A9pxgLnhVoEjrzYBLo52A0QHR8tcavCNd-_7NY7y=g@mail.gmail.com>

FYI. Kindly share to your networks

   1. The 3rd Africa Internet Governance Forum is set. Nicon Luxury Hotel,
   Abuja. July 10 - 12. Contact afigf at nigf.org.ng and
   afigf-secretariat at uneca.org
   2. Monday 7/7/2014 is last date to send data page of passport and
   itinerary  for visa on arrival procesing.
   3. Welcome desks are set up at the Abuja airport for all arriving
   delegates. On arrival, look for the logo and attendants
   4. LOC has provided complimentary airport-hotel shuttle
   5. Sponsored delegates must send their details to be communicated to
   hotel asap
   6. UNECA, IFLA, OIF, and APC extend  invitations to be part of the
   pre-event workshops on 10/7/2014
   7. Please use #AfIGF2014 for your tweets.
   8. Interpretation will be available for Days 2 and 3 for English and
   French
   9. Onsite registration will be available beginning on 10/7/2014
   10. Remote participation will be powered by webex for all 3 days.
   Password for all days is *AFIGF2014*

Nnenna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/2ccda8ae/attachment.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 nhklein at gmx.net  Mon Jul  7 05:14:51 2014
From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein)
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 16:14:51 +0700
Subject: [governance] corporates and ethics
In-Reply-To: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net>
References: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53BA650B.2010603@gmx.net>

Some statistical comments:

    "*Is USA a Democracy or a Plutocracy? *

    Plutocracy defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the
    small minority of the wealthiest citizens. Is this what we have in
    USA, or Democracy?

    For reference check out the charts attached here which are by
    Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) using
    the World Top
    Incomes Database, which charts shows how income gains between 1975
    and 2007 were divvied up in 18 OECD countries for which the
    researchers had data. Nowhere did the rich benefit as much as in USA.

    As you can see, in some countries like Denmark the vast majority of
    income gains went to the bottom 90
    percent -- SOCIALISTS! -- while nearly half of U.S. income gains
    went to the richest one percent..."

    https://www.anoox.com/ask_answer/qanda.php?q_id=134114&trk=mem_question

Norbert Klein
Cambodia




On 7/6/2014 11:26 PM, parminder wrote:
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/06/we-shouldnt-expect-facebook-to-behave-ethically?CMP=fb_gu
>
> "Besides, the idea that corporations might behave ethically is as 
> absurd as the proposition that cats should respect the rights of small 
> mammals. Cats do what cats do: kill other creatures. Corporations do 
> what corporations do: maximise revenues and shareholder value and stay 
> within the law. Facebook may be on the extreme end of corporate 
> sociopathy, but really it's just the exception that proves the rule."
>
> (quote ends)
>
> Well, if I had said these sentences, there would have been an 
> immediate multistakeholder (MS) condemnation, for not conforming to 
> the multi-stakeholder spirit!
>
> It is these corporations that are to sought to be given special 
> political rights by the 'equal footing' MS brigade, to be on the 
> policy making table and making political decisions, for all of us. 
> ...  The US public, and its civil society organisations, are still 
> reeling under the impact of the US court ruling to allow unlimited 
> corporate contribution to campaign financing, on the basis of a novel 
> political construction that corporates have the right to freedom of 
> expression, which cannot be diluted under the first amendment. This 
> judgement, many in the US and abroad feel, is having the impact of 
> spinning US politics so much away from its democratic foundation that 
> soon it may be difficult to consider US as a really working democracy.
>
> But that 'novel political construction' of allowing corporates to have 
> human rights was nothing. The 'equal footing' MSists go much much 
> further; they want corporates to have voting rights and decision 
> making powers for public policy matters. The rest of world has simply 
> not waken up to this demon, which is making slow but serious progress, 
> although somewhat clandestinely, against the values and institutions 
> of democracy.
>
> parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/5bd72ed2/attachment.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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Jul  7 08:26:07 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:26:07 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] corporates
 http://webmail1c.orange.fr/webmail/fr_FR/write.html#and ethics
In-Reply-To: <53BA650B.2010603@gmx.net>
References: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net> <53BA650B.2010603@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <1628030163.14334.1404735968094.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c16>

Thanks Norbert

 

We can complement the two (revealing) graphs by a list of the cost of a presidential campaign in the quoted countries. This would definitively transform the question in an assertion ! 

 

Best

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack






> Message du 07/07/14 14:10
> De : "Norbert Klein" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] corporates and ethics
> 
>Some statistical comments:
> 
>

"Is USA a Democracy or a Plutocracy? 
>

Plutocracy defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. Is this what we have in USA, or Democracy?
> 
>
For reference check out the charts attached here which are by Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) using the World Top 
> Incomes Database, which charts shows how income gains between 1975 and 2007 were divvied up in 18 OECD countries for which the researchers had data. Nowhere did the rich benefit as much as in USA.
> 
> As you can see, in some countries like Denmark the vast majority of income gains went to the bottom 90
> percent -- SOCIALISTS! -- while nearly half of U.S. income gains went to the richest one percent..."
> 
> https://www.anoox.com/ask_answer/qanda.php?q_id=134114&trk=mem_question
> 
>
Norbert Klein
> Cambodia
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
On 7/6/2014 11:26 PM, parminder wrote:
>
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/06/we-shouldnt-expect-facebook-to-behave-ethically?CMP=fb_gu
> 
> "Besides, the idea that corporations might behave ethically is as absurd as the proposition that cats should respect the rights of small mammals. Cats do what cats do: kill other creatures. Corporations do what corporations do: maximise revenues and shareholder value and stay within the law. Facebook may be on the extreme end of corporate sociopathy, but really it's just the exception that proves the rule."
> 
> (quote ends)
> 
> Well, if I had said these sentences, there would have been an immediate multistakeholder (MS) condemnation, for not conforming to the multi-stakeholder spirit!
> 
> It is these corporations that are to sought to be given special political rights by the 'equal footing' MS brigade, to be on the policy making table and making political decisions, for all of us. ...  The US public, and its civil society organisations, are still reeling under the impact of the US court ruling to allow unlimited corporate contribution to campaign financing, on the basis of a novel political construction that corporates have the right to freedom of expression, which cannot be diluted under the first amendment. This judgement, many in the US and abroad feel, is having the impact of spinning US politics so much away from its democratic foundation that soon it may be difficult to consider US as a really working democracy. 
> 
> But that 'novel political construction' of allowing corporates to have human rights was nothing. The 'equal footing' MSists go much much further; they want corporates to have voting rights and decision making powers for public policy matters. The rest of world has simply not waken up to this demon, which is making slow but serious progress, although somewhat clandestinely, against the values and institutions of democracy.  
> 
> parminder

> 
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/3a1f5b26/attachment.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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Jul  7 09:24:24 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:24:24 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Members] Fwd: [Post 2015 Women's Coalition]
 Privatization of Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN
In-Reply-To: <53BA2CCA.6040306@itforchange.net>
References: <53BA22FC.2010707@itforchange.net>
 <53BA2CCA.6040306@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <931219143.16091.1404739464578.JavaMail.www@wwinf1c16>

Bravo and thanks, Parminder.

 

You found the "gold nugget" (your mail attached piece) for our discussion on MSism ! 

 

Since the very beginning of the WSIS -you know this place for experimenting the model of future, MS driven global governance- I tried to convince our CS colleagues to ask the ITU to open itself to CS and made several proposals in WSIS sessions for this to become a reality, since this UN agency was given the mandate by the UNGA to lead and coordinate the WSIS process. Their support was weak, if any. For most of our colleagues MS was the buzz .... and the "key" for a hypothetical "UN 2.0".

 

However, there remains a main question about the ITU : can this agency still be considered as an -only- intergovernmental UN Agency ?

 

It's Convention has been amended/modified/completed so many times in a series of "Plenipotentiary Conferences", all oriented towards giving its so-called "Sector Members" (i.e. Private sector organizations) more power in decision-making processes and even in the private sector status in its bodies.

 

Except some rich (capable of paying some thousand Swiss Francs annual fees) and complacent CS orgs (a handful) there i no place for CS in or under the "Tower" !

 

I do hope that the discussion raised by Parminder on the topic "Privatization of Global Governance" will also question the ITU's legitimacy to lead/coordinate and organize the WSIS (finsihing) follow-up process, and, what's more, the WSIS Beyond 2015 process ... if it was to happen.

 

Best greetings

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

 

 





> Message du 07/07/14 07:22
> De : "parminder" 
> A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Fwd: [Members] Fwd: [Post 2015 Women's Coalition] Privatization of Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN
> 
>
>
Well, I spoke too soon when I said in my last email "The rest of world has simply not waken up to this demon, which is making slow but serious progress, although somewhat clandestinely, against the values and institutions of democracy. "
> 
>  People outside the charmed IG circles are indeed now picking up the dangers of equal footing MSism as being a part of the neolib design to corporatize global governance. The cat, as they, is out of the bag... The civil society equal footing MS-ists would no longer be able to obfuscate their positions and pass off as mainstream civil society. They are not. Mainstream civil society is for democracy, and is extremely bothered about the new cult of TNCs dominating global governance spaces.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------


Subject:
[Members] Fwd: [Post 2015 Women's Coalition] Privatization of Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN

Date:
Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:03:00 +0530

From:
anita

Reply-To:
members at justnetcoalition.org

To:
members at justnetcoalition.org




> 
>The attached report starts powerfully,
> 
> "As globalization has compounded the power of large transnational corporations (TNCs) in recent decade, big
> business has consolidated its influence on global governance and the United Nations in particular. In that multi-
> lateral setting, corporate actors have been granted privileged access to decision-makers, and their interests have
> become more prominent as calls for legally binding instruments for TNCs become more sidelined. In the ongoing
> discussions towards a post-2015 sustainable development agenda, the private sector is positioning itself as the
> solution to current global challenges – while simultaneously attempting in other fora to evade UN oversight and
> regulation. The embrace of a voluntary “partnership” approach has resulted in a corresponding shift towards a
> multi-stakeholder governance paradigm – buoyed by big business and the governments invested in it1 – in the
> World Economic Forum, the World Trade Organization, and the agencies and agendas of the UN."
> 
> It asserts that
> 
> "Labeling all actors stakeholders, as if all were equal and
> had the same interest, obscures the power imbalances
> between various sectors and the vast differences between
> their agendas. It promotes a depoliticized model of govern-
> ance that negates the different interests and power struc-
> tures inherent in the global economic system."
> 
> and 
> 
> I think the recommendations may be useful - for us to resonate the same message - albeit more contextually to the aims of JNC - and to contribute to their website our deconstructions of the state of play in the digital domain
> 
> "Post-2015
> »
> Build an intergovernmental accountability framework in the post-2015 agenda, with government-adopted
> guidelines and government monitoring. House a monitoring and oversight hub for “partnerships” within a
> strong and effective High-Level Political Forum, tasked with monitoring the implementation of the post-2015
> agenda.
> Business and Human Rights
> » Call for effective international regulation of TNCs through ensuring the establishment of an open-ended
>   intergovernmental working group tasked with a draft mandate, in accordance with the recent resolution in the
>  UN Human Rights Council (HRC).
> » Strengthen the central role of the HRC in the business and human rights discourse, in recognition of its
>   unique role to provide global leadership in human rights by strengthening standards and creating effective
>  implementation and accountability mechanisms."
> 
> 
> anita
> 
>

> 
> -------- Original Message --------


Subject:
[Post 2015 Women's Coalition] Privatization of Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the UN

Date:
Sun, 6 Jul 2014 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT)

From:
kathrynjtobin

To:
post2015womenscoalition at googlegroups.com




> 
>
Dear colleagues,
> 
> Global Policy Forum is pleased to share its new web portal on corporate influence at the UN, part of a broader research focus on the privatization of global governance. We have compiled recent GPF analysis, relevant UN documents, and an extensive listing of reports and articles by civil society organizations and think tanks, tracking the consolidation of corporate power in the multilateral setting. As this work illustrates, corporations and their proxies are transforming the discourse and/or blocking progressive outcomes in both the UN's sustainable development post-2015 agenda and the business and human rights processes, pushing (overtly and/or silently) for "multi-stakeholder" governance models and voluntary, non-binding corporate social responsibility commitments. Read more on the history of corporate influence at the UN, its current manifestations, and GPF's recommendations on reversing the corporate capture of the UN. 
> 
> GPF Briefing 1: Privatizing Global Governance: Corporate Influence at the United Nations 
> Global Policy Forum has undertaken significant research to track and chart the increasing power and influence of corporations in global governance settings, particularly the UN. We are pleased to share with you our new Briefing on Corporate Influence (attached), which includes main messages and recommendations.
> 
> Sign up to join the Global Policy Forum listserv. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Kathryn (Katie) Tobin
> Global Policy Forum
> kathryntobin at globalpolicy.org
> www.globalpolicy.org  
>
-- 
> The Post_2015_Women's_Coalition listserv is a key communications platform for feminist, women's and social justice organizations working on women's rights and gender equality in the post 2015 sustainable development framework.
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Post_2015_Women's_Coalition" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to post2015womenscoalition+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to post2015womenscoalition at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
>
-- 
>
Anita Gurumurthy | Executive Director
> IT for Change
> (In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)
> 91-80-26654134 |  T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055
> Email:anita at itforchange.net

Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net 
> 
> 

>

> 
>

>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

>
> [ GPF__Briefing_1.pdf (451.2 Ko) ]
> [ Attached Message Part (0.1 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/24892f65/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics1
Type: image/png
Size: 6531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/24892f65/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics2
Type: image/png
Size: 676 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/24892f65/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics3
Type: image/png
Size: 298 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/24892f65/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graphics4
Type: image/png
Size: 359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/24892f65/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul  7 11:15:44 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:15:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] FW: One Year Later: Global Analysis of the Snowden
 Revelations -- BC  Civil Liberties Association
In-Reply-To: <CACKppcynDA-WJFYHQ_TLjPcOQJuBe-Pgqr0iyfkmJ476M5dN6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACKppcynDA-WJFYHQ_TLjPcOQJuBe-Pgqr0iyfkmJ476M5dN6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <083a01cf99f6$54bb4f80$fe31ee80$@gmail.com>

Excellent report, including country level discussions and biblio’s on Snowden one year on…

 

M

 

“Civil society and the tech community have not adequately adapted to 

the challenges raised by the Snowden revelations.”

 

http://bccla.org/2014/06/one-year-later-global-analysis-of-the-snowden-revelations-released/
One Year Later: Global Analysis of the Snowden Revelations (BC Civil Liberties Association)

BC Civil Liberties Association       June 10, 2014 


One Year Later: Global Analysis of the Snowden Revelations


by Micheal Vonn <http://bccla.org/author/micheal/> 

 <http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Micheal-Vonn-colour-150x150.jpg> Micheal-Vonn-colour-150x150

Policy Director Micheal Vonn

As the old gag starts out, “Well, I got good news and I’ve got bad news”.  The good news is that lots and lots has happened as a result of the Snowden revelations.  The bad news is that, as of yet, very little of that activity has managed to bring about meaningful reform.

Now, one year after Edward Snowden first revealed the extent of the secret national security surveillance network, it is critical that we assess how successful we have been in our response.  This is a fight the global community must not lose, and only by taking stock can we know where to go to next. 

Simon Davies, one of the most influential privacy advocates in the world and founder of Privacy International, has taken on this job.  He has spearheaded the compilation of 20 country and sector reports analysing responses to the revelations from around the globe.  If you’re eager to see Canada’s report card, skip to page 22, where correspondents Tamir Israel, Chris Parsons and myself give our summary.


Civil Society Has Risen To the Task


In Canada, and elsewhere, what’s indisputable is that the Snowden revelations have put the activities of national security agencies and the value of privacy in the global spotlight like never before.

And there is no question that civil society has been empowered by this.  The catalogue of civil society efforts is marvelous.  From the 10,000 – 15,000 people on the streets of Berlin for the ‘Freedom Not Fear’ demonstration to the Mexican activist organizations taking on Mexican servers that they allege are hosting ‘FinFisher’ spyware  (surveillance software) – the energy, stamina and courage of activists and citizens is inspiring.


Governments Are Not Performing As Well…


But governments are not responding.  Much.  For example, we have seen some preliminary, but important, action by the European Parliament, like the review of the notoriously flawed Safe Harbor Agreement  (a data sharing agreement between the US and the European Union).   However, governmental inaction, denial and evasion are the habitual themes documented in the report.

Interestingly, litigation appears frequently as the best hope for the next stage of battle, see: the coalitions of groups bringing challenges up through the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the European Court of Human Rights; the no less than six legal actions pending in the U.S.; and the BCCLA’s own historic constitutional challenge to CSEC.


Wonks and Geeks: Let’s Get Together


As to some of the areas where we need to focus now, the report  highlights that while there has been a “promising start” on accountability and transparency from the corporate and industry partners in global surveillance, we’ve got a long way to go on this front.  And we have a crucial relationship to forge between civil society and the tech community to get the realms of policy reform and technical privacy solutions working together.  The wonks and the geeks:  we share a dance every once n’ awhile, but we’ve got to start goin’ steady.

The report is here. <http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Snowden-final-report-for-publication.pdf>   It is a very important resource.  The battle to harness national security surveillance is going to be a long game and the stakes are beyond imagining.  At many stages along the way we are going to need to pause, survey the landscape, re-group and re-fine the strategy.

Our thanks to Simon Davies for this urgently needed report.  We are honoured to be a part of it.

Read the full report here. <http://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Snowden-final-report-for-publication.pdf> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140707/9b41485e/attachment.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Jul  8 10:23:52 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:23:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN - regulator or the regulated
In-Reply-To: <53B2BF85.5070002@itforchange.net>
References: <53B2BF85.5070002@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E1X4WDU-0003Zj-42@igcaucus.org>

At 16:02 01/07/2014, parminder wrote:
><http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/01/icann-future-of-the-internet#start-of-comments>http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/01/icann-future-of-the-internet#start-of-comments

Just wandering what can be the domain name industry. I only know the 
ICANN/NTIA Class 'IN' sales system.
jfc


>People have begun to point to the emperor's (non) clothes... Will 
>the emperor and the courtiers take notice.
>
>parminder
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140708/a27845e2/attachment.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Jul  8 10:14:33 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:14:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] corporates and ethics
In-Reply-To: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net>
References: <53B978BE.1090706@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E1X4WFR-0003ka-Mb@igcaucus.org>

At 18:26 06/07/2014, parminder wrote:
>It is these corporations that are to sought to be given special 
>political rights by the 'equal footing' MS brigade, to be on the 
>policy making table and making political decisions, for all of us. 
>...  The US public, and its civil society organisations, are still 
>reeling under the impact of the US court ruling to allow unlimited 
>corporate contribution to campaign financing, on the basis of a 
>novel political construction that corporates have the right to 
>freedom of expression, which cannot be diluted under the first 
>amendment. This judgement, many in the US and abroad feel, is having 
>the impact of spinning US politics so much away from its democratic 
>foundation that soon it may be difficult to consider US as a really 
>working democracy.

You are right ("this ruling strikes at our democracy itself", "I 
can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest" (Obama)).
However, the US do not claim to be a democracy, but a Republic. 
Please reread Aristotle about democracy.

>But that 'novel political construction' of allowing corporates to 
>have human rights was nothing. The 'equal footing' MSists go much 
>much further; they want corporates to have voting rights and 
>decision making powers for public policy matters. The rest of world 
>has simply not waken up to this demon, which is making slow but 
>serious progress, although somewhat clandestinely, against the 
>values and institutions of democracy.

The "equal footing" MSism "including states", means that 
corporations, people and states are on an equal legal duties and 
rights levels. This is the whole idea behind TIPP and TAFTA, except 
that they are not on a practical financial equal footing. The general 
internet understanding (cf. RFC 6852) is creeping towards a 
plutocracy of the offer, and a polycracy of the demand. (polycracy 
means the self-process of non-state-boud/supported crowds) This is 
entirely a new situation in the human history permitted by the free 
people digital interconnection (I suppose Carlos will find it far-fetched).

Voltaire said that Prussia was not a realm having an army, but an 
army having conquered a country. The US strategy tends to show they 
are not anymore a democracy with an industry, but an industry that is 
attempting to conquer the world.

I am afraid that the Internet is one of the battle flieds and the 
ICANN/NTIA transition is a key skirmish in this campaign.

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  Tue Jul  8 10:23:37 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:23:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] FW: One Year Later: Global Analysis of the
  Snowden Revelations -- BC  Civil Liberties Association
In-Reply-To: <083a01cf99f6$54bb4f80$fe31ee80$@gmail.com>
References: <CACKppcynDA-WJFYHQ_TLjPcOQJuBe-Pgqr0iyfkmJ476M5dN6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <083a01cf99f6$54bb4f80$fe31ee80$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1X4WHr-0003xt-2z@igcaucus.org>

Michael,
could you tell me the difference between Press Freedom and PRISM. 
Except that the first one makes more money than the second one. ;-)
jfc

At 17:15 07/07/2014, michael gurstein wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----=_NextPart_000_083B_01CF9A07.18464260"
>Content-Language: en-us
>
>Excellent report, including country level discussions and biblio’s 
>on Snowden one year on

>
>M
>
>“Civil society and the tech community have not adequately adapted to
>the challenges raised by the Snowden revelations.”
>
><http://bccla.org/2014/06/one-year-later-global-analysis-of-the-snowden-revelations-released/>http://bccla.org/2014/06/one-year-later-global-analysis-of-the-snowden-revelations-released/
>One Year Later: Global Analysis of the Snowden Revelations (BC Civil 
>Liberties Association)
>BC Civil Liberties Association       June 10, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140708/3f8e53a2/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Wed Jul  9 04:45:22 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 10:45:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Just Net Coalition
In-Reply-To: <CA+hSVSrHyaRqdh_cyz6Gyohi8Q1td10i-D6Ryk19_qNqDm5oRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+hSVSrHyaRqdh_cyz6Gyohi8Q1td10i-D6Ryk19_qNqDm5oRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140709104522.47f4262d@quill>

On 24 Jun 2014, David Sullivan <dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org>
wrote:

> Hi all - does anyone know if the Just Net Coalition has a public list
> of members yet?

Now online at http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-members

Greetings,
Norbert
co-convenor, Just Net Coalition

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Thu Jul 10 06:38:05 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:38:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] CFP: 2nd International Workshop on Security Assurance
 in the Cloud (IWSAC 2014)
Message-ID: <00a501cf9c2b$08790770$196b1650$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]

 

***************

CALL FOR PAPERS

***************

 

SECOND INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON SECURITY ASSURANCE IN THE CLOUD (IWSAC

2014)

Held in conjunction with the 10th International Conference on Signal Image
Technology & Internet Based Systems (SITIS 2014) One day between November
23-27, 2014, Marrakech, Morocco Web site:
<http://sesar.di.unimi.it/IWSAC2014> http://sesar.di.unimi.it/IWSAC2014

 

IWSAC 2014 BACKGROUND AND GOALS

The ongoing merge between Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) and the
Cloud computing paradigm provides a new environment fostering the
integration of services located within company boundaries with those in the
Cloud. An increasing number of organizations implement their business
processes and applications via runtime composition of services made
available in the Cloud by external suppliers. This scenario is changing the
traditional view of security introducing new service security risks and
threats, and requires re-thinking of current assurance, development,
testing, and verification methodologies. In particular, security assurance
in the cloud is becoming a pressing need to increase the confidence of the
cloud actors that the cloud and its services are behaving as expected, and
requires novel approaches addressing SOA and cloud peculiarities. IWSAC 2014
is the continuation of the International Workshop on Securing Services on
the Cloud, held in September 2011, Milan, Italy. It aims to address the
security assurance issues related to the deployment of services in the
Cloud, along with evaluating their impact on traditional security solutions
for software and network systems.

 

The workshop seeks submissions from academia and industry presenting novel
research on all theoretical and practical aspects of security and assurance
of services implemented in the Cloud, as well as experimental studies in
Cloud infrastructures, the implementation of services, and lessons learned.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

 

* Authentication and access control in the cloud

* Challenges in moving critical systems to the cloud

* Cloud accountability

* Cloud audit

* Cloud compliance

* Cloud certification

* Cloud transparency, introspection, and outrospection

* Cybersecurity in the cloud

* Data security and privacy in the Cloud

* Information assurance and trust management

* Intrusion detection in the Cloud

* Security assurance in the cloud

* Security and assurance protocols in the Cloud

* Service level agreements

* Service procurement in the cloud

* Service verification in critical cloud services

* Test-based and monitoring-based verification of cloud services

 

IMPORTANT DATES

Paper submission due: September 6, 2014 (11:59 PM American Samoa time)
Notification to authors: October 1, 2014 Camera-ready due: October 15, 2014
Registration due: October 19, 2014

 

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Submissions must not substantially overlap papers that have been published
or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or conference/workshop
with proceedings. Each submission should be at most

8 pages in total including bibliography and well-marked appendices, and must
follow the IEEE double columns publication format available at

- [Microsoft Word DOC]

 <ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/instructA4x2.doc>
ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/instructA4x2.doc

- [LaTex Formatting Macros]

 
<ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/IEEE_CS_LatexA4x2.zip>
ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/IEEE_CS_LatexA4x2.zip

 

A maximum of 2 extra pages can be purchased for the final version of the
accepted papers.

 

Submissions are to be made to the submission web site

 <https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2014>
https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2014 by selecting track
"Workshop on Security Assurance in the Cloud". Only pdf files will be
accepted. Submissions not meeting these guidelines risk rejection without
consideration of their merits.

 

Authors of accepted papers must guarantee that their papers will be
presented at the workshop. At least one author of each accepted paper is
required to register with the main conference and present the paper.

Accepted papers at the workshop will be published in the conference
proceedings and in the IEEE digital library.

Extended version of selected accepted papers will be considered for
publication in a journal special issue (TBC).

 

IWSAC 2014 COMMITTEES AND CHAIRS

 

General Chair (SITIS General Chair)

* Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

 

Program Chairs

* Marco Anisetti, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

* Claudio A. Ardagna, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

* Rasool Asal, British Telecommunications, UK/UAE

 

Publicity Chair

* Valerio Bellandi, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

* Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

 

Web Chair

* Fulvio Frati, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

 

Program Committee

* Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany

* Valerio Bellandi, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

* Michele Bezzi, SAP, France

* Mauro Conti, University of Padua, Italy

* Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Telecom Bretagne, France

* Ernesto Damiani, Universita' degli Studi di Milano, Italy

* Eduardo Fernandez, Florida Atlantic University, USA

* Atsuhiro Goto, Institute of Information Security, Japan

* Nils Gruschka, NEC Laboratories Europe, Germany

* Patrick Hung, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

* Meiko Jensen, Southern Denmark University, Denmark

* Florian Kerschbaum, SAP, Germany

* Nicolas Larrieu, ENAC, France

* Antonio Mana, Universidad de Malaga, Spain

* Siani Pearson, HP Labs, UK

* George Spanoudakis, City University of London, UK

 

This call for papers and additional information about the conference can be
found at  <http://sesar.di.unimi.it/iwsac2014>
http://sesar.di.unimi.it/iwsac2014

 


****************
Il 5 x mille alla nostra Università è un investimento sui giovani,
sui loro migliori progetti.

Sostiene la libera ricerca.
Alimenta le loro speranze nel futuro.

Investi il tuo 5 x mille sui giovani.

Università degli Studi di Milano
codice fiscale 80012650158

http://www.unimi.it/13084.htm?utm_source=firmaMail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=linkFirmaEmail&utm_campaign=5xmille

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140710/c98d1189/attachment.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 gpaque at gmail.com  Thu Jul 10 10:08:01 2014
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:08:01 -0500
Subject: [governance] 13-minute synthesis of NN in the USA
Message-ID: <CALCecM_8bcLJgQPwxqqtwePJX06yKq7duKx-KKxCJU6B9KT2kw@mail.gmail.com>

Very disrespectful, but very interesting and thought-provoking...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU


Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IG Programmes, DiploFoundation

*Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities,
Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical
Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy:
http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>**
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140710/23a6515d/attachment.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 wjdrake at gmail.com  Thu Jul 10 10:39:07 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:39:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] 13-minute synthesis of NN in the USA
In-Reply-To: <CALCecM_8bcLJgQPwxqqtwePJX06yKq7duKx-KKxCJU6B9KT2kw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALCecM_8bcLJgQPwxqqtwePJX06yKq7duKx-KKxCJU6B9KT2kw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AF4B60E8-5495-4554-A483-898076272276@gmail.com>

John Oliver’s been on a tear since getting his own show.

His interview with the NSA’s Keith Alexander is pretty good too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8lJ85pfb_E

Bill

On Jul 10, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Very disrespectful, but very interesting and thought-provoking...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
> 
> 
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
> 
> Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140710/a4361e7e/attachment.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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Thu Jul 10 10:56:58 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:56:58 +0300
Subject: [governance] 13-minute synthesis of NN in the USA
In-Reply-To: <CALCecM_8bcLJgQPwxqqtwePJX06yKq7duKx-KKxCJU6B9KT2kw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALCecM_8bcLJgQPwxqqtwePJX06yKq7duKx-KKxCJU6B9KT2kw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwrP6XQAszznTh4oVnhye4Vb9XtZfZo71D7mWo2xCXkKSA@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting,

I like the illustration of how big Washington lobbyists help influence
policy by raining everybody that matters with big money.

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson


On 10 July 2014 17:08, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Very disrespectful, but very interesting and thought-provoking...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
>
>
>  Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>
> *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities,
> Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical
> Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy:
> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>**
> <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140710/edee24bf/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Thu Jul 10 11:09:32 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:39:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] 13-minute synthesis of NN in the USA
In-Reply-To: <CAEhPqwrP6XQAszznTh4oVnhye4Vb9XtZfZo71D7mWo2xCXkKSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALCecM_8bcLJgQPwxqqtwePJX06yKq7duKx-KKxCJU6B9KT2kw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEhPqwrP6XQAszznTh4oVnhye4Vb9XtZfZo71D7mWo2xCXkKSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <619A5992-410E-42B3-814E-78511F9BC7C4@hserus.net>

If some of his notions of networking bore any relation to reality ..

This was posted to the IP list today and bears reading

http://www.martingeddes.com/think-tank/the-future-of-the-internet-the-end-to-end-argument/

--srs (iPad)

> On 10-Jul-2014, at 20:26, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> 
> Interesting,
> 
> I like the illustration of how big Washington lobbyists help influence policy by raining everybody that matters with big money.
> 
> ______________________
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> twitter.com/lordmwesh
> 
> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
> 
> 
>> On 10 July 2014 17:08, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Very disrespectful, but very interesting and thought-provoking...
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
>> 
>> 
>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>> 
>> Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140710/d8f57dfc/attachment.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 lorena at collaboratory.de  Mon Jul 14 07:24:57 2014
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:24:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU internet governance: Franco-German alliance
Message-ID: <CAPqXojLVt_s_eDc=75Z71g=BGvVTi+DpXtFsfQqVoXSgoE=8mQ@mail.gmail.com>

fyi - regards,
Lorena

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-enterprise/eu-internet-governance-franco-german-alliance-303421

A new report from the French Senate outlines a strategy for greater
European internet governance spearheaded by the Franco-German alliance.
Only then can the EU compete with US’s online hegemony. EurActiv France
reports
<http://www.euractiv.fr/sections/innovation-entreprises/le-couple-franco-allemand-appele-au-secours-de-la-gouvernance-du-net>
.

In a report published on 9 July, the French Senate proposed a new form of
internet governance for Europe. The senators called on the EU to play a key
role in ensuring that internet governance is independent and democratic.

According to Senator Gaëtan Gorce, head of the Senate’s mission,
appropriately titled New role and new strategy for the European Union in
the global governance of the internet
<http://www.senat.fr/espace_presse/actualites/201311/quel_role_pour_lue_dans_la_gouvernance_mondiale_de_linternet.html>,
“the Snowden affair came as a blessing”, because it exposed the companies
which store huge amounts of personal data. The revelations shook up public
opinion, and people realised the importance of healthy internet governance.

The US is the global leader of the digital sector: 36 of the 50 top digital
media companies are American.

*>> Read: EU challenges US hegemony in global internet governance
<http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/eu-challenges-us-hegemony-global-news-532137?__utma=1.1941482581.1377502382.1404984083.1404993689.261&__utmb=1.31.9.1404999357969&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1404920422.257.23.utmcsr=google%7Cutmccn=%28organic%29%7Cutmcmd=organic%7Cutmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=188486568>*

“Internet governance has become a geopolitical issue. It is a new global
battleground,” said Senator Catherine Morin-Desailly.

*Reforming internet governance*

The report contains 62 proposals aimed at “establishing a national and
European strategy to secure our place on the digital world stage,” said
Morin-Desailly. The Senate wants to improve internet governance through “an
international treaty open to all states and an online ratification process
for internet users.” It also wants to transform the Internet Governance
Forum into a World Internet Council, which would control the conformity of
decisions regarding internet governance.

The report also proposes to restructure the ICANN <https://www.icann.org/>,
a non-profit organisation that coordinates the Internet's global domain
name system. It would become the World ICANN (WICANN), conform to
international law instead of Californian law, and be accountable to the
World Internet Council. An independent and accessible appeal mechanism
would be set up to allow revision of WICANN decisions.

*>> Read: French concerns over geographical indications will hamper TTIP
talks
<http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/french-concerns-over-geographical-indications-will-hamper-ttip-talks-302856?__utma=1.1941482581.1377502382.1404984083.1404993689.261&__utmb=1.37.9.1405000189134&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1404920422.257.23.utmcsr=google%7Cutmccn=%28organic%29%7Cutmcmd=organic%7Cutmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=18103865>*

On 26 June, the French Secretary of State for Digital Affairs, Axelle
Lemaire, took an assertive stance against the ICANN. In a press release
<http://www.economie.gouv.fr/presse/communiques/37192>, she said that she
did not see the ICANN as “a suitable body to discuss internet governance.”

*Europe must make itself heard*

The authors of the report claimed that Europe is not vocal enough in
discussions about internet governance. It supports a previous report by
Catherin Morin-Desailly,* The European Union, digital colony?* (December
2013). In it, Morin-Desailly stressed that Europe had fallen behind:
“Europe’s position is shrinking. Two years ago 12 European companies
featured in the world’s top-hundred largest high-tech companies, but now
there are only eight.”

Morin-Desailly wants the EU to “take its digital destiny into its own hands
and make it a top political priority”. She believes that the EU should
“build a European industrial strategy to gain more control over our data
and convey our values". It would be linked to digital diplomacy “with a
clear doctrine and financial means” in order to promote European values
online.

*Franco-German partnership*

There is a lack of political will. Paris could spearhead the action, but it
needs allies. The senators believe that the France-German partnership could
be the engine behind Europe’s ambitions of internet governance.

A Franco-German alliance based on data-security is possible because of
Germany’s interest in the area. The report proposes two concrete industrial
projects: a mobile operating system and a secure and open European Cloud.

Gaëtan Gorce said it is in the EU’s interests to “affirm its principles and
not to be shy,” emphasising the need to “speak as one and be coherent".
Anne-Claude Martin I EurActiv.fr - article translated from French
<http://www.euractiv.com/bylines/anne-claude-martin-i-euractivfr-article-translated-french>


-- 
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance
(GIG) Ohu
 Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter
<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE> ∙
 Facebook <http://goo.gl/eJVZn> ∙ Twitter <http://goo.gl/sUFM5> ∙
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube
<http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140714/11d82c5d/attachment.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Jul 10 16:14:15 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 22:14:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] 13-minute synthesis of NN in the USA
In-Reply-To: <619A5992-410E-42B3-814E-78511F9BC7C4@hserus.net>
References: <CALCecM_8bcLJgQPwxqqtwePJX06yKq7duKx-KKxCJU6B9KT2kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhPqwrP6XQAszznTh4oVnhye4Vb9XtZfZo71D7mWo2xCXkKSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <619A5992-410E-42B3-814E-78511F9BC7C4@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <E1X6iiX-0000uh-Td@igcaucus.org>

At 17:09 10/07/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>If some of his notions of networking bore any relation to reality ..
>
>This was posted to the IP list today and bears reading
>
><http://www.martingeddes.com/think-tank/the-future-of-the-internet-the-end-to-end-argument/>http://www.martingeddes.com/think-tank/the-future-of-the-internet-the-end-to-end-argument/

Thx for letting know about this person. Too late in the night for now 
to read in detail: this review is though provoking but needs to be 
revamped on some points regarding the "by then" POV. And to be read 
with a pencil.
Best
jfc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140710/b7a17756/attachment.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Jul 14 13:03:18 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:03:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU internet governance: Franco-German alliance
In-Reply-To: <CAPqXojLVt_s_eDc=75Z71g=BGvVTi+DpXtFsfQqVoXSgoE=8mQ@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAPqXojLVt_s_eDc=75Z71g=BGvVTi+DpXtFsfQqVoXSgoE=8mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1X6jZ7-0001Lb-3y@igcaucus.org>

Lorena,

I certainly fully support the work accomplished by the French Senate. 
However, these propositions should be considered within the 
perspective of the WSIS MSism. It is a proposition by Governements. 
We need in parallel a position by the European industry, and one by 
the European people to be fully constructive.

We just had the 15th Libre Software Meeting (http://2014.rmll.info): 
it shown that time is probably near when Libre Networking can emerge 
with a technically advanced vision of the Internet Use toward the 
second multitechnology transparent/innovation oriented motivation of 
the initial IEN 48 project that has been delayed by the "statUS-quo" 
strategy. This comes at a time this strategy has been revisited by 
the RFC 6852 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6852) assigning an 
fragmented economic mission to the technology, to the interest of 
"global communities".

I think ICANN participates from the "Being Unilaterally Global" BUG. 
To help ICANN survive, it must have organized competition; otherwise 
we will be in a mess once EU, Russia, China, etc. States and people 
stop trusting its ability to "Be Unilaterally Global". An opposition 
US/EU is certainly possible (the NTIA has said it will not accept a 
State led solution: this is only the position of one State on 193. 
Our own concern is at our own VGN (virtual glocal netwok) level. This 
means villages, cities, regions, trades, languages. While big blocks 
opposes over ICANN and NTIA, we can build at our own level. From the 
reactions of Libre Software Meeting people to my (French) slides, I 
would say this is not yet the begining, but now very near from it.

In the French document German and Europe's people have been 
interviewed. It might be time that our Libre people network together 
at technical level. The US business has top down fragmented the 
internet. May be could we federate it back in a 
geographical/professional bottom-up EU move?

jfc


At 13:24 14/07/2014, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote:
>fyi - regards,
>Lorena
>
><http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-enterprise/eu-internet-governance-franco-german-alliance-303421>http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-enterprise/eu-internet-governance-franco-german-alliance-303421
>
>A new report from the French Senate outlines a strategy for greater 
>European internet governance spearheaded by the Franco-German 
>alliance. Only then can the EU compete with US’s online hegemony. 
><http://www.euractiv.fr/sections/innovation-entreprises/le-couple-franco-allemand-appele-au-secours-de-la-gouvernance-du-net>EurActiv 
>France reports.
>
>In a report published on 9 July, the French Senate proposed a new 
>form of internet governance for Europe. The senators called on the 
>EU to play a key role in ensuring that internet governance is 
>independent and democratic.
>
>According to Senator Gaëtan Gorce, head of the Senate’s mission, 
>appropriately titled 
><http://www.senat.fr/espace_presse/actualites/201311/quel_role_pour_lue_dans_la_gouvernance_mondiale_de_linternet.html>New 
>role and new strategy for the European Union in the global 
>governance of the internet, “the Snowden affair came as a 
>blessing”, because it exposed the companies which store huge 
>amounts of personal data. The revelations shook up public opinion, 
>and people realised the importance of healthy internet governance.
>
>The US is the global leader of the digital sector: 36 of the 50 top 
>digital media companies are American.
>
> >> Read: 
> <http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/eu-challenges-us-hegemony-global-news-532137?__utma=1.1941482581.1377502382.1404984083.1404993689.261&__utmb=1.31.9.1404999357969&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1404920422.257.23.utmcsr=google%7Cutmccn=%28organic%29%7Cutmcmd=organic%7Cutmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=188486568>EU 
> challenges US hegemony in global internet governance
>
>“Internet governance has become a geopolitical issue. It is a new 
>global battleground,” said Senator Catherine Morin-Desailly.
>
>Reforming internet governance
>
>The report contains 62 proposals aimed at “establishing a national 
>and European strategy to secure our place on the digital world 
>stage,” said Morin-Desailly. The Senate wants to improve internet 
>governance through “an international treaty open to all states and 
>an online ratification process for internet users.” It also wants 
>to transform the Internet Governance Forum into a World Internet 
>Council, which would control the conformity of decisions regarding 
>internet governance.
>
>The report also proposes to restructure the 
><https://www.icann.org/>ICANN, a non-profit organisation that 
>coordinates the Internet's global domain name system. It would 
>become the World ICANN (WICANN), conform to international law 
>instead of Californian law, and be accountable to the World Internet 
>Council. An independent and accessible appeal mechanism would be set 
>up to allow revision of WICANN decisions.
>
> >> Read: 
> <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/french-concerns-over-geographical-indications-will-hamper-ttip-talks-302856?__utma=1.1941482581.1377502382.1404984083.1404993689.261&__utmb=1.37.9.1405000189134&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1404920422.257.23.utmcsr=google%7Cutmccn=%28organic%29%7Cutmcmd=organic%7Cutmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=18103865>French 
> concerns over geographical indications will hamper TTIP talks
>
>On 26 June, the French Secretary of State for Digital Affairs, 
>Axelle Lemaire, took an assertive stance against the ICANN. In a 
><http://www.economie.gouv.fr/presse/communiques/37192>press release, 
>she said that she did not see the ICANN as “a suitable body to 
>discuss internet governance.”
>
>Europe must make itself heard
>
>The authors of the report claimed that Europe is not vocal enough in 
>discussions about internet governance. It supports a previous report 
>by Catherin Morin-Desailly, The European Union, digital colony? 
>(December 2013). In it, Morin-Desailly stressed that Europe had 
>fallen behind: “Europe’s position is shrinking. Two years ago 12 
>European companies featured in the world’s top-hundred largest 
>high-tech companies, but now there are only eight.”
>
>Morin-Desailly wants the EU to “take its digital destiny into its 
>own hands and make it a top political priority”. She believes that 
>the EU should “build a European industrial strategy to gain more 
>control over our data and convey our values". It would be linked to 
>digital diplomacy “with a clear doctrine and financial means” in 
>order to promote European values online.
>
>Franco-German partnership
>
>There is a lack of political will. Paris could spearhead the action, 
>but it needs allies. The senators believe that the France-German 
>partnership could be the engine behind Europe’s ambitions of 
>internet governance.
>
>A Franco-German alliance based on data-security is possible because 
>of Germany’s interest in the area. The report proposes two 
>concrete industrial projects: a mobile operating system and a secure 
>and open European Cloud.
>
>Gaëtan Gorce said it is in the EU’s interests to “affirm its 
>principles and not to be shy,” emphasising the need to “speak as 
>one and be coherent".
><http://www.euractiv.com/bylines/anne-claude-martin-i-euractivfr-article-translated-french>Anne-Claude 
>Martin I EurActiv.fr - article translated from French
>
>
>--
>Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet 
>Governance (GIG) Ohu
>Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
><http://www.collaboratory.de/>www.collaboratory.de ∙ 
><http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>Newsletter 
>∙ <http://goo.gl/eJVZn>Facebook ∙ 
><http://goo.gl/sUFM5>Twitter ∙ 
><http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube
>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140714/ad691634/attachment.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 lorena at collaboratory.de  Mon Jul 14 14:48:08 2014
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lorena_Jaume-Palas=ED?=)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 20:48:08 +0200
Subject: AW: Re: [governance] EU internet governance: Franco-German alliance
Message-ID: <s2kl0ns0yakr6tc4p7teaadd.1405363688566@email.android.com>


JC it was a mere fyi, no endorsement at all
Best,
Lorena



Von Samsung Galaxy Note gesendetJFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> hat geschrieben:Lorena,

I certainly fully support the work accomplished by the French Senate. However, these propositions should be considered within the perspective of the WSIS MSism. It is a proposition by Governements. We need in parallel a position by the European industry, and one by the European people to be fully constructive. 

We just had the 15th Libre Software Meeting ( http://2014.rmll.info): it shown that time is probably near when Libre Networking can emerge with a technically advanced vision of the Internet Use toward the second multitechnology transparent/innovation oriented motivation of the initial IEN 48 project that has been delayed by the "statUS-quo" strategy. This comes at a time this strategy has been revisited by the RFC 6852 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6852) assigning an fragmented economic mission to the technology, to the interest of "global communities". 

I think ICANN participates from the "Being Unilaterally Global" BUG. To help ICANN survive, it must have organized competition; otherwise we will be in a mess once EU, Russia, China, etc. States and people stop trusting its ability to "Be Unilaterally Global". An opposition US/EU is certainly possible (the NTIA has said it will not accept a State led solution: this is only the position of one State on 193. Our own concern is at our own VGN (virtual glocal netwok) level. This means villages, cities, regions, trades, languages. While big blocks opposes over ICANN and NTIA, we can build at our own level. From the reactions of Libre Software Meeting people to my (French) slides, I would say this is not yet the begining, but now very near from it.

In the French document German and Europe's people have been interviewed. It might be time that our Libre people network together at technical level. The US business has top down fragmented the internet. May be could we federate it back in a geographical/professional bottom-up EU move?

jfc


At 13:24 14/07/2014, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote:
fyi - regards,
Lorena

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-enterprise/eu-internet-governance-franco-german-alliance-303421 

A new report from the French Senate outlines a strategy for greater European internet governance spearheaded by the Franco-German alliance. Only then can the EU compete with US’s online hegemony. EurActiv France reports.

In a report published on 9 July, the French Senate proposed a new form of internet governance for Europe. The senators called on the EU to play a key role in ensuring that internet governance is independent and democratic.

According to Senator Gaëtan Gorce, head of the Senate’s mission, appropriately titled New role and new strategy for the European Union in the global governance of the internet, “the Snowden affair came as a blessing”, because it exposed the companies which store huge amounts of personal data. The revelations shook up public opinion, and people realised the importance of healthy internet governance.

The US is the global leader of the digital sector: 36 of the 50 top digital media companies are American.

>> Read: EU challenges US hegemony in global internet governance

“Internet governance has become a geopolitical issue. It is a new global battleground,” said Senator Catherine Morin-Desailly.

Reforming internet governance

The report contains 62 proposals aimed at “establishing a national and European strategy to secure our place on the digital world stage,” said Morin-Desailly. The Senate wants to improve internet governance through “an international treaty open to all states and an online ratification process for internet users.” It also wants to transform the Internet Governance Forum into a World Internet Council, which would control the conformity of decisions regarding internet governance.

The report also proposes to restructure the ICANN, a non-profit organisation that coordinates the Internet's global domain name system. It would become the World ICANN (WICANN), conform to international law instead of Californian law, and be accountable to the World Internet Council. An independent and accessible appeal mechanism would be set up to allow revision of WICANN decisions.

>> Read: French concerns over geographical indications will hamper TTIP talks

On 26 June, the French Secretary of State for Digital Affairs, Axelle Lemaire, took an assertive stance against the ICANN. In a press release, she said that she did not see the ICANN as “a suitable body to discuss internet governance.”

Europe must make itself heard

The authors of the report claimed that Europe is not vocal enough in discussions about internet governance. It supports a previous report by Catherin Morin-Desailly, The European Union, digital colony? (December 2013). In it, Morin-Desailly stressed that Europe had fallen behind: “Europe’s position is shrinking. Two years ago 12 European companies featured in the world’s top-hundred largest high-tech companies, but now there are only eight.”

Morin-Desailly wants the EU to “take its digital destiny into its own hands and make it a top political priority”. She believes that the EU should “build a European industrial strategy to gain more control over our data and convey our values". It would be linked to digital diplomacy “with a clear doctrine and financial means” in order to promote European values online.

Franco-German partnership

There is a lack of political will. Paris could spearhead the action, but it needs allies. The senators believe that the France-German partnership could be the engine behind Europe’s ambitions of internet governance.

A Franco-German alliance based on data-security is possible because of Germany’s interest in the area. The report proposes two concrete industrial projects: a mobile operating system and a secure and open European Cloud.

Gaëtan Gorce said it is in the EU’s interests to “affirm its principles and not to be shy,” emphasising the need to “speak as one and be coherent".
Anne-Claude Martin I EurActiv.fr - article translated from French


-- 
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu
Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140714/6c566a33/attachment.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  Tue Jul 15 02:41:29 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:11:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] More "Mind Control": Hacking Online Polls and Other
 Ways British Spies Seek to Control the Internet
Message-ID: <056401cf9ff7$d1c04150$7540c3f0$@gmail.com>

How much there has been a "fusing" of cognition with the flow of digital
information particularly for "digital natives" is a matter of considerable
discussion. This below would appear to be a description of tools to
facilitate the direct intervention and manipulation of that digital
information flow-evidently paralleling Facebook in its
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/facebook-does-mind-control/> "mind
control" initiatives.  

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-online-polls-ways
-british-spies-seek-control-internet/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140715/08bbb18f/attachment.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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Tue Jul 15 09:58:18 2014
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:58:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] CFP: International Workshop on Computational
 Intelligence Techniques for Industrial and Medical Applications (CITIMA
 2014)
Message-ID: <00ec01cfa034$d4f4f2c0$7eded840$@unimi.it>

[Apologies if you receives multiple copies of this CfP]



****************************************************************************
***************************

International Workshop on Computational Intelligence Techniques for
Industrial and Medical Applications

CITIMA 2014



Collocated with:

SITIS 2014 - The 10th International Conference on SIGNAL IMAGE TECHNOLOGY &
INTERNET BASED SYSTEMS

November 23-27, 2014 - Marrakech, Morocco



http://www.sitis-conf.org/en/citima-2014.php

****************************************************************************
***************************

* Scope of the Workshop

Computational Intelligence techniques are adopted in many industrial
applications, like visual based quality control, image enhancement in
consumer electronics, video based recognition of identity or behaviors,
audio based speech recognition for enhanced human like interaction with
machines etc. It also has a strong impact in medical applications, like
medical image enhancement, semi-automatic detection of pathologies,
pre-filtering and reconstruction of volumes from medical scans etc. Despite
this growing diffusion, there are still many possible areas where
computational intelligence application is partial or could be extended and
improved, due to the actual limitations in terms of computational power or
strict requirements in terms of assurance of the results.

This workshop aims to investigate the impact of the adoption of advanced and
innovative Computational Intelligence techniques in industrial and medical
applications. This edition of the workshop is focused primarily on Imaging
and Multimedia based industrial and medical applications with special
emphasis to real time systems

The workshop will bring together researchers on different disciplines from
academia and industry with a common objective: go beyond the frontiers of
today industrial applications of Computational Intelligence techniques.

Topics for the workshop include, but are not limited to:

- Imaging for Industrial applications

- Computational Intelligence approaches in Consumer Electronics

- Real-time Multimedia Signal Processing

- Intelligent User Interfaces

- Virtual-augmented reality for Healthcare

- Real-time digital images & watermarking

- Real-time signal compression and analysis

- Spatial and temporal estimation and protection of media streams

- Learning systems for signal and information processing and evidential
reasoning for recognition

- Soft computing approaches for embedded multimedia systems

- Real time signal processing & vision

- Expert system for embedded system

- Color and illumination

* Important dates

- Submission deadline: September 6, 2014

- Acceptance/Reject notification: October 6, 2014

- Camera-ready: October 15, 2014

- Author Registration: October 19, 2014

* Submission

Each submission should be at most 8 pages in total including bibliography
and well-marked appendices, and must follow the IEEE double columns
publication format available at:

- Microsoft Word DOC
(ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/instructA4x2.doc)

- LaTex Formatting Macros
(ftp://pubftp.computer.org/Press/Outgoing/proceedings/IEEE_CS_LatexA4x2.zip)




Paper submission will only be online via Easy Chair
(https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2014).

Only pdf files will be accepted. Submissions not meeting these guidelines
risk rejection without consideration of their merits.

All submitted papers will be carefully evaluated based on originality,
significance, technical soundness, and clarity of expression by at least two
reviewers. The organizers will examine the reviews and make final paper
selections.

* Publication

All the papers accepted for the workshop will be included in the conference
proceedings. The proceedings will be published by IEEE Computer Society and
referenced in IEEE Xplore Digital Library and major indexes. They will be
available at the conference.

* Registration

At least one author of each accepted paper must register for the workshop.
Workshop registration fee is determined by SITIS. A single registration for
the workshop or the conference allows attending both events.

* Program Co-Chairs

- M. Anisetti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- R. Sassi, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- V. Bellandi, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- G. Jeon, Incheon National University, Korea

* Program Committee

- Borko Furht, Florida Atlantic University, USA

- Fulvio Frati, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy

- Alesssandro De Mauro, eHealth & Biomedical Applications, Spain

- Wei Wu, Sichuan University, China

- Luigi Gallo, ICAR CNR, Italy

- Marco Sacco, ITIA CNR, Italy

- Abdellah Chehri, University of Ottawa, Canada

- Michele Geronazzo, University on Padova, Italy

- Luigi Arnone, ST Microelectronics, Italy

- Xiangdong Chen, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China



* Contact

marco.anisetti at unimi.it <mailto:marco.anisetti at unimi.it>

 <mailto:roberto.sassi at unimi.it> roberto.sassi at unimi.it






****************
Il 5 x mille alla nostra Università è un investimento sui giovani,
sui loro migliori progetti.

Sostiene la libera ricerca.
Alimenta le loro speranze nel futuro.

Investi il tuo 5 x mille sui giovani.

Università degli Studi di Milano
codice fiscale 80012650158

http://www.unimi.it/13084.htm?utm_source=firmaMail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=linkFirmaEmail&utm_campaign=5xmille

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140715/051c3b38/attachment.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 kichango at gmail.com  Tue Jul 15 13:26:41 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:26:41 +0000
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on the MAG has
been asked to provide names of people who could embody CS presence at a
"High-Level" (ministerial) meeting during Istanbul IGF.

The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names are expected
to be recommended by close of business today. I and Deirdre as co-cos are
traveling. Indeed after the African IGF in Abuja last week, I am in Lome
where, alas, Internet is still a relative luxury as far as I can see, from
the standpoint of the average literate (let alone the average population.)
So it is likely that any request for action may take about 24 hours to be
heeded, from my end.

Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the name of Ms.
Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that process (maybe along a second
person.) I haven't had time to inform Deirdre about this (and probably time
is too short for that kind of protocol.)

Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2 names from each
one of the CS larger networks in the field (or 2 names for all of those
networks including IGC, Bestbits and NCSG), I would ask you to suggest a
second name so that we're ready just in case.

Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or from any other
IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I notify Anriette otherwise,
De will be our representative on and for this.

I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is under control
regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday 10:00pm UTC/GMT.

I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be posted by
Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.

Thanks,

Mawaki
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140715/53eace10/attachment.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 anriette at apc.org  Tue Jul 15 13:43:47 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:43:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53C56853.5050302@apc.org>

Dear Mawaki

Deadline from IGF secretariat is actually tomorrow, Wednesday.

And we should not that this list of names will be forwarded to the host 
country government organisers, and they will then decide who to invite. 
So my suggestion is not to stress too much about it. As long as give 
them a list that is regionally diverse.

My suggestion considering how little time we have for this process was 
to send around 14 names, from IGC, BestBits, Community Informatics, 
CSISAC, JustNet, and a few others.

So if IGC can send two names that would be great, and then just make 
sure they are not the same names being put forward by the other networks.

One option would be to put forward your and Deirdre's names as 
coordinators of the IGC. Will you both be there?

Anriette




On 15/07/2014 19:26, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on the MAG 
> has been asked to provide names of people who could embody CS presence 
> at a "High-Level" (ministerial) meeting during Istanbul IGF.
>
> The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names are 
> expected to be recommended by close of business today. I and Deirdre 
> as co-cos are traveling. Indeed after the African IGF in Abuja last 
> week, I am in Lome where, alas, Internet is still a relative luxury as 
> far as I can see, from the standpoint of the average literate (let 
> alone the average population.) So it is likely that any request for 
> action may take about 24 hours to be heeded, from my end.
>
> Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the name of 
> Ms. Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that process (maybe along 
> a second person.) I haven't had time to inform Deirdre about this (and 
> probably time is too short for that kind of protocol.)
>
> Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2 names from 
> each one of the CS larger networks in the field (or 2 names for all of 
> those networks including IGC, Bestbits and NCSG), I would ask you to 
> suggest a second name so that we're ready just in case.
>
> Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or from any 
> other IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I notify Anriette 
> otherwise, De will be our representative on and for this.
>
> I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is under 
> control regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday 10:00pm UTC/GMT.
>
> I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be posted by 
> Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140715/b7e7a80d/attachment.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Jul 15 02:52:26 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:52:26 +0200
Subject: AW: Re: [governance] EU internet governance: Franco-German
  alliance
In-Reply-To: <s2kl0ns0yakr6tc4p7teaadd.1405363688566@email.android.com>
References: <s2kl0ns0yakr6tc4p7teaadd.1405363688566@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <E1X77I1-0004rX-FR@igcaucus.org>

At 20:48 14/07/2014, Lorena Jaume-Palasí wrote:

>JC it was a mere fyi, no endorsement at all
>Best,
>Lorena

As I mention it, I do not endorse/oppose it either, but I think the 
civil society should proceed from every experience. This experience 
exemplifies that the NTIA plan will not be the only one. We must be 
prepared to this situation.
Best
jfc




>Von Samsung Galaxy Note gesendet
>
>JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> hat geschrieben:
>Lorena,
>
>I certainly fully support the work accomplished by the French 
>Senate. However, these propositions should be considered within the 
>perspective of the WSIS MSism. It is a proposition by Governements. 
>We need in parallel a position by the European industry, and one by 
>the European people to be fully constructive.
>
>We just had the 15th Libre Software Meeting ( 
>http://2014.rmll.info): it shown that time is probably near when 
>Libre Networking can emerge with a technically advanced vision of 
>the Internet Use toward the second multitechnology 
>transparent/innovation oriented motivation of the initial IEN 48 
>project that has been delayed by the "statUS-quo" strategy. This 
>comes at a time this strategy has been revisited by the RFC 6852 ( 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6852) assigning an fragmented economic 
>mission to the technology, to the interest of "global communities".
>
>I think ICANN participates from the "Being Unilaterally Global" BUG. 
>To help ICANN survive, it must have organized competition; otherwise 
>we will be in a mess once EU, Russia, China, etc. States and people 
>stop trusting its ability to "Be Unilaterally Global". An opposition 
>US/EU is certainly possible (the NTIA has said it will not accept a 
>State led solution: this is only the position of one State on 193. 
>Our own concern is at our own VGN (virtual glocal netwok) level. 
>This means villages, cities, regions, trades, languages. While big 
>blocks opposes over ICANN and NTIA, we can build at our own level. 
> From the reactions of Libre Software Meeting people to my (French) 
>slides, I would say this is not yet the begining, but now very near from it.
>
>In the French document German and Europe's people have been 
>interviewed. It might be time that our Libre people network together 
>at technical level. The US business has top down fragmented the 
>internet. May be could we federate it back in a 
>geographical/professional bottom-up EU move?
>
>jfc
>
>
>At 13:24 14/07/2014, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote:
>>fyi - regards,
>>Lorena
>>
>><http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-enterprise/eu-internet-governance-franco-german-alliance-303421>http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-enterprise/eu-internet-governance-franco-german-alliance-303421 
>>
>>
>>A new report from the French Senate outlines a strategy for greater 
>>European internet governance spearheaded by the Franco-German 
>>alliance. Only then can the EU compete with US’s online 
>>hegemony. 
>><http://www.euractiv.fr/sections/innovation-entreprises/le-couple-franco-allemand-appele-au-secours-de-la-gouvernance-du-net>EurActiv 
>>France reports.
>>
>>In a report published on 9 July, the French Senate proposed a new 
>>form of internet governance for Europe. The senators called on the 
>>EU to play a key role in ensuring that internet governance is 
>>independent and democratic.
>>
>>According to Senator Gaëtan Gorce, head of the Senate’s 
>>mission, appropriately titled 
>><http://www.senat.fr/espace_presse/actualites/201311/quel_role_pour_lue_dans_la_gouvernance_mondiale_de_linternet.html>New 
>>role and new strategy for the European Union in the global 
>>governance of the internet, “the Snowden affair came as a 
>>blessing”, because it exposed the companies which store huge 
>>amounts of personal data. The revelations shook up public opinion, 
>>and people realised the importance of healthy internet governance.
>>
>>The US is the global leader of the digital sector: 36 of the 50 top 
>>digital media companies are American.
>>
>> >> Read: 
>> <http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/eu-challenges-us-hegemony-global-news-532137?__utma=1.1941482581.1377502382.1404984083.1404993689.261&__utmb=1.31.9.1404999357969&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1404920422.257.23.utmcsr=google%7Cutmccn=%28organic%29%7Cutmcmd=organic%7Cutmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=188486568>EU 
>> challenges US hegemony in global internet governance
>>
>>“Internet governance has become a geopolitical issue. It is a 
>>new global battleground,” said Senator Catherine Morin-Desailly.
>>
>>Reforming internet governance
>>
>>The report contains 62 proposals aimed at “establishing a 
>>national and European strategy to secure our place on the digital 
>>world stage,” said Morin-Desailly. The Senate wants to improve 
>>internet governance through “an international treaty open to 
>>all states and an online ratification process for internet 
>>users.” It also wants to transform the Internet Governance 
>>Forum into a World Internet Council, which would control the 
>>conformity of decisions regarding internet governance.
>>
>>The report also proposes to restructure the 
>><https://www.icann.org/>ICANN, a non-profit organisation that 
>>coordinates the Internet's global domain name system. It would 
>>become the World ICANN (WICANN), conform to international law 
>>instead of Californian law, and be accountable to the World 
>>Internet Council. An independent and accessible appeal mechanism 
>>would be set up to allow revision of WICANN decisions.
>>
>> >> Read: 
>> <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/french-concerns-over-geographical-indications-will-hamper-ttip-talks-302856?__utma=1.1941482581.1377502382.1404984083.1404993689.261&__utmb=1.37.9.1405000189134&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1404920422.257.23.utmcsr=google%7Cutmccn=%28organic%29%7Cutmcmd=organic%7Cutmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=18103865>French 
>> concerns over geographical indications will hamper TTIP talks
>>
>>On 26 June, the French Secretary of State for Digital Affairs, 
>>Axelle Lemaire, took an assertive stance against the ICANN. In a 
>><http://www.economie.gouv.fr/presse/communiques/37192>press 
>>release, she said that she did not see the ICANN as “a 
>>suitable body to discuss internet governance.”
>>
>>Europe must make itself heard
>>
>>The authors of the report claimed that Europe is not vocal enough 
>>in discussions about internet governance. It supports a previous 
>>report by Catherin Morin-Desailly, The European Union, digital 
>>colony? (December 2013). In it, Morin-Desailly stressed that Europe 
>>had fallen behind: “Europe’s position is shrinking. Two 
>>years ago 12 European companies featured in the world’s 
>>top-hundred largest high-tech companies, but now there are only eight.”
>>
>>Morin-Desailly wants the EU to “take its digital destiny into 
>>its own hands and make it a top political priority”. She 
>>believes that the EU should “build a European industrial 
>>strategy to gain more control over our data and convey our values". 
>>It would be linked to digital diplomacy “with a clear doctrine 
>>and financial means” in order to promote European values online.
>>
>>Franco-German partnership
>>
>>There is a lack of political will. Paris could spearhead the 
>>action, but it needs allies. The senators believe that the 
>>France-German partnership could be the engine behind Europe’s 
>>ambitions of internet governance.
>>
>>A Franco-German alliance based on data-security is possible because 
>>of Germany’s interest in the area. The report proposes two 
>>concrete industrial projects: a mobile operating system and a 
>>secure and open European Cloud.
>>
>>Gaëtan Gorce said it is in the EU’s interests to 
>>“affirm its principles and not to be shy,” emphasising 
>>the need to “speak as one and be coherent".
>><http://www.euractiv.com/bylines/anne-claude-martin-i-euractivfr-article-translated-french>Anne-Claude 
>>Martin I EurActiv.fr - article translated from French
>>
>>
>>--
>>Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global 
>>Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu
>>Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V.
>><http://www.collaboratory.de/>www.collaboratory.de ∙ 
>><http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE>Newsletter 
>>∙ <http://goo.gl/eJVZn>Facebook ∙ 
>><http://goo.gl/sUFM5>Twitter ∙ 
>><http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube
>>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
>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140715/56d16780/attachment.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  Tue Jul 15 14:36:10 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 00:06:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Obama administration says the world's servers
 are ours
In-Reply-To: <757C49E2-305C-4C8A-ADB3-040E0F94C233@gmail.com>
References: <5FBB4AFF-E034-4FF1-9D81-8757F30A9102@warpspeed.com> <757C49E2-305C-4C8A-ADB3-040E0F94C233@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <08ca01cfa05b$a84a1850$f8de48f0$@gmail.com>

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne at warpspeed.com>

Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Obama administration says the world's servers are
ours

Date: July 14, 2014 at 3:47:28 PM EDT

To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>

Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com

 

Obama administration says the world's servers are ours
US says global reach needed to gut "fraudsters," "hackers," and "drug
dealers."
By David Kravets

Jul 14 2014

<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-wo
rlds-servers-are-ours/>

Global governments, the tech sector, and scholars are closely following a
legal flap in which the US Justice Department claims that Microsoft must
hand over e-mail stored in Dublin, Ireland.

In essence, President Barack Obama's administration claims that any company
with operations in the United States must comply with valid warrants for
data, even if the content is stored overseas. It's a position Microsoft and
companies like Apple say is wrong, arguing that the enforcement of US law
stops at the border.

A magistrate judge has already sided with the government's position, ruling
in April that "the basic principle that an entity lawfully obligated to
produce information must do so regardless of the location of that
information." Microsoft appealed to a federal judge, and the case is set to
be heard on July 31.

In its briefs filed last week, the US government said that content stored
online doesn't enjoy the same type of Fourth Amendment protections as data
stored in the physical world. The government
<safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/federalbrief
-microsoftcase.pdf> cited (PDF) the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a
President Ronald Reagan-era regulation:

Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid subpoena,
order, or warrant compels their production. The disclosure of records under
such circumstances has never been considered tantamount to a physical search
under Fourth Amendment principles, and Microsoft is mistaken to argue that
the SCA provides for an overseas search here. As there is no overseas search
or seizure, Microsoft's reliance on principles of extra-territoriality and
comity falls wide of the mark.

Microsoft said the decision has wide-ranging, global implications. "Congress
has not authorized the issuance of warrants that reach outside US
territory," Microsoft's attorneys
<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/microsoft-challenges-us-govt-war
rant-to-access-overseas-customer-data/> wrote. "The government cannot seek
and a court cannot issue a warrant allowing federal agents to break down the
doors of Microsoft's Dublin facility."

The Redmond, Washington-based company said its consumer trust is low in the
wake of the Edward Snowden revelations. It told the US judge presiding over
the case that "[t]he government's position in this case further erodes that
trust and will ultimately erode the leadership of US technologies in the
global market."

Companies like Apple, AT&T, Cisco, and Verizon agree. Verizon
<safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/verizonamicu
s.pdf> said (PDF) that a decision favoring the US would produce "dramatic
conflict with foreign data protection laws." Apple and Cisco
<safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/applebriefin
remicrosft.pdf> said (PDF) that the tech sector is put "at risk" of being
sanctioned by foreign governments and that the US should seek cooperation
with foreign nations via treaties, a position the US said is not practical.

The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an age when
"electronic communications are used extensively by criminals of all types in
the United States and abroad, from fraudsters to hackers to drug dealers, in
furtherance of violations of US law."

The e-mail the US authorities are seeking from Microsoft concerns a
drug-trafficking investigation. Microsoft often stores e-mail on servers
closest to the account holder.

The senior counsel for the Irish Supreme Court wrote in a recent filing that
a US-Ireland "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty" was the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/10/Nationa
l-Security/Graphics/SDNY%20McDowell%20Declaration.pdf> "efficient" avenue
(PDF) for the US government to obtain the e-mail held on Microsoft's
external servers.

Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment expert at George Washington University,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/microsoft-fights-us-s
earch-warrant-for-customer-e-mails-held-in-overseas-server/2014/06/10/6b8416
ae-f0a7-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html> said, "The scope of the privacy
laws around the world is now a very important question, and this is the
beginning of what may be a lot of litigation on the question. So it's a big
case to watch."

 


 <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3> |
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4
308> Modify Your Subscription |
<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-
97c5b007&post_id=20140714160148:B4952B62-0B91-11E4-BC5E-F4360264DADE>
Unsubscribe Now 

 <http://www.listbox.com> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/02e41e32/attachment.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Jul 15 16:12:08 2014
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:12:08 +1200
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAjW2BWX=cC_PnxptyDKvTdEETEBTuh0hiA8JvkUmUNuA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mawaki,

As coordinators, you are both empowered to be there or at least one of you
or alternatively a proxy or nominee from the IGC. In light of the short
notice, you do not have to gather consensus for the support as it is part
of administrative duties and making sure either of you reports back.

Best Wishes,
Sala


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on the MAG has
> been asked to provide names of people who could embody CS presence at a
> "High-Level" (ministerial) meeting during Istanbul IGF.
>
> The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names are expected
> to be recommended by close of business today. I and Deirdre as co-cos are
> traveling. Indeed after the African IGF in Abuja last week, I am in Lome
> where, alas, Internet is still a relative luxury as far as I can see, from
> the standpoint of the average literate (let alone the average population.)
> So it is likely that any request for action may take about 24 hours to be
> heeded, from my end.
>
> Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the name of Ms.
> Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that process (maybe along a second
> person.) I haven't had time to inform Deirdre about this (and probably time
> is too short for that kind of protocol.)
>
> Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2 names from
> each one of the CS larger networks in the field (or 2 names for all of
> those networks including IGC, Bestbits and NCSG), I would ask you to
> suggest a second name so that we're ready just in case.
>
> Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or from any other
> IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I notify Anriette otherwise,
> De will be our representative on and for this.
>
> I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is under
> control regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday 10:00pm UTC/GMT.
>
> I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be posted by
> Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/b4a43d18/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jul 16 00:58:37 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:28:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [Members] FW: [IP] Obama administration says the
 world's servers are ours
In-Reply-To: <08ca01cfa05b$a84a1850$f8de48f0$@gmail.com>
References: <5FBB4AFF-E034-4FF1-9D81-8757F30A9102@warpspeed.com>	<757C49E2-305C-4C8A-ADB3-040E0F94C233@gmail.com> <08ca01cfa05b$a84a1850$f8de48f0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53C6067D.3050100@itforchange.net>


The problem is, this isnt even hypocrisy, and an entirely new much 
stronger word has to be invented for it...

See for instance

"The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an age 
when "electronic communications are used extensively by criminals of all 
types in the United States and abroad, from fraudsters to hackers to 
drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US law.""

Yes, global jurisdiction is needed, and that global jurisdiction should 
be US jurisdiction. Sure.

Meanwhile, similar demands by other countries to have  jurisdiction on 
matters of their national concern is supposed to be a call to control 
the Internet.

And at times when saying such think looks just too bad or illogical in 
polite company, say, ok multistakeholder jurisdiction is fine, knowing 
very well that it means nothing, which is the whole point..

parminder



On Wednesday 16 July 2014 12:06 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> *From: *Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne at warpspeed.com 
> <mailto:dewayne at warpspeed.com>>
>
> *Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Obama administration says the world's servers 
> are ours*
>
> *Date: *July 14, 2014 at 3:47:28 PM EDT
>
> *To: *Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net at warpspeed.com 
> <mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>>
>
> *Reply-To: *dewayne-net at warpspeed.com <mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>
>
> Obama administration says the world's servers are ours
> US says global reach needed to gut "fraudsters," "hackers," and "drug 
> dealers."
> By David Kravets
>
> Jul 14 2014
>
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours/>
>
> Global governments, the tech sector, and scholars are closely 
> following a legal flap in which the US Justice Department claims that 
> Microsoft must hand over e-mail stored in Dublin, Ireland.
>
> In essence, President Barack Obama's administration claims that any 
> company with operations in the United States must comply with valid 
> warrants for data, even if the content is stored overseas. It's a 
> position Microsoft and companies like Apple say is wrong, arguing that 
> the enforcement of US law stops at the border.
>
> A magistrate judge has already sided with the government's position, 
> ruling in April that "the basic principle that an entity lawfully 
> obligated to produce information must do so regardless of the location 
> of that information." Microsoft appealed to a federal judge, and the 
> case is set to be heard on July 31.
>
> In its briefs filed last week, the US government said that content 
> stored online doesn't enjoy the same type of Fourth Amendment 
> protections as data stored in the physical world. The government cited 
> <safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/federalbrief-microsoftcase.pdf> (PDF) 
> the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a President Ronald Reagan-era 
> regulation:
>
>     Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid
>     subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production. The
>     disclosure of records under such circumstances has never been
>     considered tantamount to a physical search under Fourth Amendment
>     principles, and Microsoft is mistaken to argue that the SCA
>     provides for an overseas search here. As there is no overseas
>     search or seizure, Microsoft's reliance on principles of
>     extra-territoriality and comity falls wide of the mark.
>
> Microsoft said the decision has wide-ranging, global implications. 
> "Congress has not authorized the issuance of warrants that reach 
> outside US territory," Microsoft's attorneys wrote 
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/microsoft-challenges-us-govt-warrant-to-access-overseas-customer-data/>. 
> "The government cannot seek and a court cannot issue a warrant 
> allowing federal agents to break down the doors of Microsoft's Dublin 
> facility."
>
> The Redmond, Washington-based company said its consumer trust is low 
> in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations. It told the US judge 
> presiding over the case that "[t]he government's position in this case 
> further erodes that trust and will ultimately erode the leadership of 
> US technologies in the global market."
>
> Companies like Apple, AT&T, Cisco, and Verizon agree. Verizon said 
> <safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/verizonamicus.pdf> (PDF) 
> that a decision favoring the US would produce "dramatic conflict with 
> foreign data protection laws." Apple and Cisco said 
> <safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/applebriefinremicrosft.pdf> (PDF) 
> that the tech sector is put "at risk" of being sanctioned by foreign 
> governments and that the US should seek cooperation with foreign 
> nations via treaties, a position the US said is not practical.
>
> The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an age 
> when "electronic communications are used extensively by criminals of 
> all types in the United States and abroad, from fraudsters to hackers 
> to drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US law."
>
> The e-mail the US authorities are seeking from Microsoft concerns a 
> drug-trafficking investigation. Microsoft often stores e-mail on 
> servers closest to the account holder.
>
> The senior counsel for the Irish Supreme Court wrote in a recent 
> filing that a US-Ireland "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty" was the 
> "efficient 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/10/National-Security/Graphics/SDNY%20McDowell%20Declaration.pdf>" 
> avenue (PDF) for the US government to obtain the e-mail held on 
> Microsoft's external servers.
>
> Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment expert at George Washington University, 
> said 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/microsoft-fights-us-search-warrant-for-customer-e-mails-held-in-overseas-server/2014/06/10/6b8416ae-f0a7-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html>, 
> "The scope of the privacy laws around the world is now a very 
> important question, and this is the beginning of what may be a lot of 
> litigation on the question. So it's a big case to watch."
>
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> 
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3>| 
> Modify 
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308> 
> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now 
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20140714160148:B4952B62-0B91-11E4-BC5E-F4360264DADE> 
>
>
> 	
>
> <http://www.listbox.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/355a69b6/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Wed Jul 16 01:09:00 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:39:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [Members] FW: [IP] Obama administration says
 the world's servers are ours
In-Reply-To: <53C6067D.3050100@itforchange.net>
References: <5FBB4AFF-E034-4FF1-9D81-8757F30A9102@warpspeed.com>
 <757C49E2-305C-4C8A-ADB3-040E0F94C233@gmail.com>
 <08ca01cfa05b$a84a1850$f8de48f0$@gmail.com>
 <53C6067D.3050100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1473d92c658.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Right now this is simply an order by a magistrate and has been appealed in 
federal court.

Declamatory speech making can wait pending the result of this appeal



On 16 July 2014 10:29:55 am parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> The problem is, this isnt even hypocrisy, and an entirely new much
> stronger word has to be invented for it...
>
> See for instance
>
> "The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an age
> when "electronic communications are used extensively by criminals of all
> types in the United States and abroad, from fraudsters to hackers to
> drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US law.""
>
> Yes, global jurisdiction is needed, and that global jurisdiction should
> be US jurisdiction. Sure.
>
> Meanwhile, similar demands by other countries to have  jurisdiction on
> matters of their national concern is supposed to be a call to control
> the Internet.
>
> And at times when saying such think looks just too bad or illogical in
> polite company, say, ok multistakeholder jurisdiction is fine, knowing
> very well that it means nothing, which is the whole point..
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 12:06 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
> >
> > *From: *Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne at warpspeed.com
> > <mailto:dewayne at warpspeed.com>>
> >
> > *Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Obama administration says the world's servers
> > are ours*
> >
> > *Date: *July 14, 2014 at 3:47:28 PM EDT
> >
> > *To: *Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net at warpspeed.com
> > <mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>>
> >
> > *Reply-To: *dewayne-net at warpspeed.com <mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>
> >
> > Obama administration says the world's servers are ours
> > US says global reach needed to gut "fraudsters," "hackers," and "drug
> > dealers."
> > By David Kravets
> >
> > Jul 14 2014
> >
> > 
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours/>
> >
> > Global governments, the tech sector, and scholars are closely
> > following a legal flap in which the US Justice Department claims that
> > Microsoft must hand over e-mail stored in Dublin, Ireland.
> >
> > In essence, President Barack Obama's administration claims that any
> > company with operations in the United States must comply with valid
> > warrants for data, even if the content is stored overseas. It's a
> > position Microsoft and companies like Apple say is wrong, arguing that
> > the enforcement of US law stops at the border.
> >
> > A magistrate judge has already sided with the government's position,
> > ruling in April that "the basic principle that an entity lawfully
> > obligated to produce information must do so regardless of the location
> > of that information." Microsoft appealed to a federal judge, and the
> > case is set to be heard on July 31.
> >
> > In its briefs filed last week, the US government said that content
> > stored online doesn't enjoy the same type of Fourth Amendment
> > protections as data stored in the physical world. The government cited
> > 
> <safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/federalbrief-microsoftcase.pdf> 
> (PDF)
> > the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a President Ronald Reagan-era
> > regulation:
> >
> >     Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid
> >     subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production. The
> >     disclosure of records under such circumstances has never been
> >     considered tantamount to a physical search under Fourth Amendment
> >     principles, and Microsoft is mistaken to argue that the SCA
> >     provides for an overseas search here. As there is no overseas
> >     search or seizure, Microsoft's reliance on principles of
> >     extra-territoriality and comity falls wide of the mark.
> >
> > Microsoft said the decision has wide-ranging, global implications.
> > "Congress has not authorized the issuance of warrants that reach
> > outside US territory," Microsoft's attorneys wrote
> > 
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/microsoft-challenges-us-govt-warrant-to-access-overseas-customer-data/>.
> > "The government cannot seek and a court cannot issue a warrant
> > allowing federal agents to break down the doors of Microsoft's Dublin
> > facility."
> >
> > The Redmond, Washington-based company said its consumer trust is low
> > in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations. It told the US judge
> > presiding over the case that "[t]he government's position in this case
> > further erodes that trust and will ultimately erode the leadership of
> > US technologies in the global market."
> >
> > Companies like Apple, AT&T, Cisco, and Verizon agree. Verizon said
> > 
> <safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/verizonamicus.pdf> 
> (PDF)
> > that a decision favoring the US would produce "dramatic conflict with
> > foreign data protection laws." Apple and Cisco said
> > 
> <safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/applebriefinremicrosft.pdf> 
> (PDF)
> > that the tech sector is put "at risk" of being sanctioned by foreign
> > governments and that the US should seek cooperation with foreign
> > nations via treaties, a position the US said is not practical.
> >
> > The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an age
> > when "electronic communications are used extensively by criminals of
> > all types in the United States and abroad, from fraudsters to hackers
> > to drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US law."
> >
> > The e-mail the US authorities are seeking from Microsoft concerns a
> > drug-trafficking investigation. Microsoft often stores e-mail on
> > servers closest to the account holder.
> >
> > The senior counsel for the Irish Supreme Court wrote in a recent
> > filing that a US-Ireland "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty" was the
> > "efficient
> > 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/10/National-Security/Graphics/SDNY%20McDowell%20Declaration.pdf>"
> > avenue (PDF) for the US government to obtain the e-mail held on
> > Microsoft's external servers.
> >
> > Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment expert at George Washington University,
> > said
> > 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/microsoft-fights-us-search-warrant-for-customer-e-mails-held-in-overseas-server/2014/06/10/6b8416ae-f0a7-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html>,
> > "The scope of the privacy laws around the world is now a very
> > important question, and this is the beginning of what may be a lot of
> > litigation on the question. So it's a big case to watch."
> >
> > Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3>|
> > Modify
> > 
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308>
> > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
> > 
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20140714160148:B4952B62-0B91-11E4-BC5E-F4360264DADE>
> >
> >
> > 	
> >
> > <http://www.listbox.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/a6e55672/attachment.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 manasa at itforchange.net  Wed Jul 16 07:13:58 2014
From: manasa at itforchange.net (Manasa Priya Vasudevan)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:43:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] JNC statement to BRICS summit
Message-ID: <53C65E76.6080204@itforchange.net>

Dear all,

Please find enclosed, a statement issued by Just Net Coalition addressed 
to the leaders of BRICS countries assembled in Fortaleza, Brazil. 
Alternatively, you can also find the statement at: 
http://www.justnetcoalition.org/Satement-to-the-BRICS-Summit-in-Fortaleza-Brazil. 
The statement seeks their active role in a new global Internet 
governance dispensation, which is democratic, and promotes human rights, 
equity and social justice for all.

The annex to the statement carries a set of concrete recommendations on 
how BRICS countries should take a lead in developing open source basic 
operating systems, software and applications that should then be made 
available to all as public utilities. To do so is fundamental to 
reclaiming the Internet as a global commons , which serves as a equal 
playing field for all to use it for their purposes and benefits. It is 
also necessary to regain the trust in the Internet and ensure 
communication which is safe and fully protects people's privacy.

We are happy to receive feedback on this.

Rgds,

Manasa Priya Vasudevan/
Research Assistant/
*IT for Change*

(In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)

*+91 96203 58044*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/72cf14c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BRICS_summit - civil society statement.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 180942 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/72cf14c0/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BRICS_summit- Civil society statement.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 81959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/72cf14c0/attachment.odt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BRICS_summit- Civil society statement.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 12092 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/72cf14c0/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed Jul 16 09:01:42 2014
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:01:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Internet_Governance_Forum?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_=E2=80=93_USA_=28IGF-USA=29_2014?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk07HbjfVTUsyGvju5=CpPaK0MR4YYudzM9DXZnagTBJ9Q@mail.gmail.com>

This has just begun. There are 3 separate channels to cover the breakout
sessions. Not mentioned in the main agenda is that, in the afternoon, we
will be doing a remote breakout in NYC. That will be on Channel 3. If in
the area, drop by, More info: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6811


[image: IGF USA]Today *Wednesday July 16 2014* the *Internet Governance
Forum – USA (IGF-USA) 201*4 <http://www.igf-usa.us/page/igf-usa-2014> is a
full day conference at George Washington University in Washington, DC. The
IGF-USA 2014 will bring together thought leaders from across the Internet
multistakeholder community to highlight and engage in discussions about key
issues that will drive the future of the Internet, and formulate consensus
to bring to the global *IGF in Istanbul* <http://www.igf2014.org.tr/> in
September.  The format is *OPENING PLENARY – MORNING BREAKOUTS – LUNCH –
PLENARY PANEL – AFTERNOON BREAKOUTS – CLOSING PLENARY.* All sessions will
be webcast live via the *Internet Society’s Livestream service*, where
comments/questions may be posted in chat.

*What*: Internet Governance Forum - USA (IGF-USA) 2014
<http://www.igf-usa.us/page/igf-usa-2014>
*Where*: George Washington University in Washington, DC.
*When*: Wednesday July 16 2014 8:45am-5:30pm EDT | 12:45-21:30 UTC

*Agenda*: http://www.igf-usa.us/page/igf-usa-2014

*Webcasts*:
Plenary and Breakout 1:
https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf-usa-2014
Breakout 2: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety2/igf-usa-2014
Breakout 3: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety3/igf-usa-2014
*Twitter*: #IGFUSA <https://twitter.com/hashtag/igfusa?f=realtime&src=hash>


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6811#respond>    See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6811#comments>





*Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6811




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/2f1e55a8/attachment.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 ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Jul 16 11:24:27 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:24:27 -0300
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
Message-ID: <206dj7f90iipqrd0ojr2olfx.1405524119651@email.android.com>

Deirdre is here (LACIGF). I am in favor of including her.




--------------------
c.a. de uma tabuleta
--------------------
c.a. from a tablet


-------- Original message --------
From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> 
Date: 15-07-2014  14:43  (GMT-03:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> 
Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level Meeting' 

Dear Mawaki

Deadline from IGF secretariat is actually tomorrow, Wednesday.

And we should not that this list of names will be forwarded to the host country government organisers, and they will then decide who to invite. So my suggestion is not to stress too much about it. As long as give them a list that is regionally diverse.

My suggestion considering how little time we have for this process was to send around 14 names, from IGC, BestBits, Community Informatics, CSISAC, JustNet, and a few others.

So if IGC can send two names that would be great, and then just make sure they are not the same names being put forward by the other networks. 

One option would be to put forward your and Deirdre's names as coordinators of the IGC. Will you both be there?

Anriette




On 15/07/2014 19:26, Mawaki Chango wrote:
Dear All,

Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on the MAG has been asked to provide names of people who could embody CS presence at a "High-Level" (ministerial) meeting during Istanbul IGF. 

The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names are expected to be recommended by close of business today. I and Deirdre as co-cos are traveling. Indeed after the African IGF in Abuja last week, I am in Lome where, alas, Internet is still a relative luxury as far as I can see, from the standpoint of the average literate (let alone the average population.) So it is likely that any request for action may take about 24 hours to be heeded, from my end.

Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the name of Ms. Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that process (maybe along a second person.) I haven't had time to inform Deirdre about this (and probably time is too short for that kind of protocol.)

Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2 names from each one of the CS larger networks in the field (or 2 names for all of those networks including IGC, Bestbits and NCSG), I would ask you to suggest a second name so that we're ready just in case.

Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or from any other IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I notify Anriette otherwise, De will be our representative on and for this.

I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is under control regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday 10:00pm UTC/GMT.

I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be posted by Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.  

Thanks,

Mawaki



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/f0226756/attachment.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Jul 16 12:16:03 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:16:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [Members] FW: [IP] Obama administration  says
 the world's servers are ours
In-Reply-To: <1473d92c658.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.n
 et>
References: <5FBB4AFF-E034-4FF1-9D81-8757F30A9102@warpspeed.com>
 <757C49E2-305C-4C8A-ADB3-040E0F94C233@gmail.com>
 <08ca01cfa05b$a84a1850$f8de48f0$@gmail.com>
 <53C6067D.3050100@itforchange.net>
 <1473d92c658.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <E1X7RmX-0001Ua-8h@igcaucus.org>

At 07:09 16/07/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Right now this is simply an order by a magistrate and has been 
>appealed in federal court.
>Declamatory speech making can wait pending the result of this appeal

Correct,
this M$/JD fuss is absurd. JD should only ask for the NSA copy of the files.

In the past, geography was used extensively by criminals of all 
types. This is why we forged international law. Now, with code 
becoming a significant part of the law, we have a global virtual 
territory under a global IETF law that is forged by internet 
dominants' employees and sub-contractors.

The only human acceptable solution to this real/virtual internet 
version of the omnipresent scientific, political, and societal 
local/global problem is a multi-local-jurisdiction global internet, 
where the local jurisdictions are built and enforced by localized 
"code" - i.e. appropriate local standards. This is what technically 
is called "SDN" (software defined networking).

To make this more easily understandable, I will use the road 
metaphor. The internet is the road system and it requires local and 
global technical and societal governances.

-          There is the asphalted lane.
-          The network of lanes is global. This is the "plug to plug" catenet.
-          On top of the catenet, asphalt concrete has been laid in 
layers: this is the "end to end" internet, the OSI layers 1 to 5 and 
a part of 7.

The road, as per the OECD, is "a line of communication (traveled way) 
using a stabilized base other than rails or air strips open to public 
traffic, primarily for the use of road motor vehicles running on 
their own wheels) ". The system building and maintenance, and road 
traveling rules are under national, regional, and local jurisdiction 
and responsibility along international principles.

-          In OSI terms, this is the layers OSI 5 to 7 and what may 
come above the OSI model.
-          in IETF internet terminology (RFC 1958) this is to happen 
at the fringe. The "fringe to fringe". is outside of the IETF "end to 
end" scope.

The fringe can be on three sides:

-          the "DSP" side, as one of the digital services it may provide.
-          the remote "edge provider" side, plugged into the DSP's 
system through its DCN (direct connection network)
-          the user side at an Intelligent Use Interface (IUI). This 
is why one speaks of the resulting layer six virtual global network 
as the "InterPLUS", where PLUS stands for "presentation layer on the 
user side".

The IUse (intelligent use) is the technical realm of the Civil 
Society. To understand why, the presentation layer is what the NSA 
prevented in the internet design: security, languages, formats, and 
network intelligence.

This why the internet missing presentation layer ***does not*** 
"ensure that the information that the application layer of one system 
sends out is best (and only) readable by the application layer of 
another system". Not implementing the presentation layer has forced 
everyone in the world to be NSA readable, i.e. to drive on the NSA 
side of the road if we use the road metaphor.

Adding a layer six support on the user side permits you to freely 
deploy optional layer six virtual networks in a transparent way to 
the internet layers below, like driving on the users' virtual sides 
of the road (on the information highways there are many virtual sides).

The resulting virtual networking has been planned from the onset (IEN 
48, the fundamental internetting plan by Vint Cerf, in July 1978) in 
order to be capable of supporting virtual networks being:

-          transparent to technologies (this is the layer six job) 
for a multitechnology network (IETF TCP/IP is not the only technology 
users may want to plug into).
-          neutral, since virtual networks will only be users 
software defined and managed (SDN)
-          "glocal", i.e. able to globally extend their internet 
"locality" (according to IEN 48, local means peculiar to the 
particular network). This is why they are called VGNs: virtual glocal networks.

Now, what the US is actually trying to achieve, just as every other 
Government, is to protect their sovereignty over digitality. One used 
to identify sovereignty with many grand things such as flags, ISO 
3166 listing, violence legitimacy, UN membership, issuing laws and 
jurisdiction, printing money, patriotism, etc. All of these things 
are certainly part of the sovereignty whole, but sovereignty is an 
iceberg: its visible economic tip is the capacity to raise taxes. 
Right now, states are not raising very much money on digital 
businesses (so, we, the users, pay for the taxes Google do not pay )

However, the US is by far the leading state in tax revenues on the 
"huge bounty" "the global economy has realized [] due to the Internet 
and the World Wide Web over the past several decades" (RFC 6852). 
They want to protect and consolidate that situation.

This situation mostly results from a general use of the pretended 
"necessary uniqueness/advantages of" the ICANN managed US VGN. It is 
a BUG (no one can Be Unilaterally Global) that the US is trying to 
transform into a global feature. In so doing, they are fragmenting 
the Internet at the application layers: into "global communities 
benefitting humanity". This is described in the "OpenStand" IEEE, 
IAB, IETF, ISOC, W3C "normalization paradigm" document |RFC 6852]: 
Web, Windows, Android, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc. based on formal 
or informal standards. This is a fragmentation because their 
legitimate commercial competition has not been consolidated first by 
one single support of diversity basis, at the missing internet 
presentation layer six.

For years, I have tried to advance the second part of the IEN 48 plan 
blocked by the US industry status-quo strategy. Transparency and 
neutrality are highways for a competition that the incumbents did not 
wish for and the current US 1996 Telecommunications Code does not 
protect (cf. FCC "Open Internet Order" invalidation). However, all I 
was able to do was:

1)      to oppose confusing standardization, in particular in the 
diversity area (multilinguistics).
2)      to ascertain that the internet would continue to be able to 
match its double IEN 48 motivation: i.e. to prove that TCP/IP could 
support the two fundamental concepts deployed by 1978, by:

-          Cyclades, the Louis Pouzin's datagram + catenet network of 
networks. It was closed in October, for budgetary reasons, in order 
to favor the X.25/PAD Transpac + Minitel project.
-          Tymnet and its secure and neutral inter-technology agoric 
architecture of which the VGN and extended services I eventually 
internationally managed and deployed. (agorics is meshed complex logic.)

A few weeks before Vint Cerf published IEN 48, we (Tymnet) had met 
with Louis Pouzin. We wanted to explore how Cyclades could extend its 
own Tymnet VGN. However, they explained to us that they were to close 
their project. We then all missed out on an opportunity that I would 
like to avoid missing again.

For your information: Tymnet initiated commercial VAN services in 
Feb. 1972. It was licensed by the FCC in 1977 (including for the 
international namespace). It was the domestic leader (60% of the 
market). It assumed 100% of the public international liaisons until 
1987. Its domestic competition with the internet technology spin-off 
Telenet has introduced/experienced the concept of competition vs. 
regulation in universal telecoms services. It was acquired in 1984 by 
the US industry to be progressively sacrificed to the "status-quo" strategy.

Thirty years later, the technical and political situation has changed:

-          The WG/IDNAbis has enlightened the fact that the internet 
technology was supporting diversity by fringe subsidiarity, and RFC 
4895 has provided an example. Progress has been important in 
distributed programming, virtualization, general sciences, etc. and 
the experience acquired by the engineers and users. A better 
architectonic understanding has been obtained; Libre and lead users 
have emerged.
-          after the WCIT voted and signed against the status-quo, in 
the wake of the RFC 6852 internet economic fragmentation 
acknowledgment. Snowdenia has made people aware of the digital 
pervasiveness. The NTIA has engaged in an internet deregulation 
strategy, where the US Executive branch protectorate would be 
replaced by the colonial regime of the US commercial law (most of the 
I*leading stakeholdership is being incorporated in the US).

This, however, opens up an opportunity for the Civil Society and Libre:

-          to affirm itself as an RFC 6852 global community 
benefitting humanity in the Civil/Libre area.
-          to address the second motivation of the internet project 
at its glocal level, encapsulating and consolidating the successful 
completion of its first motivation (IETF internet).

This means understanding the InterPLUS for what it is to be: a 
complex entanglement of VGNs (virtual glocal networks): the fringe to 
fringe networks of the end to end network of plug to plug networks.

This means that we do not need IETF like structures, rough consensus, 
gurus, leaders, etc. nor ICANN lawyers and BoD, nor Root Servers 
Systems, nor political debates over the Internet global governance.

We only need a Libre non-profit local network digital services 
provider (DSP) to start working, internetting at the presentation 
layer six over the layers 1 to 5 internet, with other local Libre 
non-profit local networks digital services providers (DSPs), and so 
on. And then to learn from experience.

This is what I am currently implementing, a double proposition of:

-          internet "Chinese wall": a non-IETF Trust copyrighted 
description of digital network technologies (including the Internet 
one) from the point of view of a connected machine. Help from every 
source, including states, academies, research, ITU, ISO, etc.
-          local community VGN development, cooperation, and 
interconnection projects.

This is a time to think about tools, development languages, etc. 
Then, to most probably start along a dual strata model:

-          meshed local network (mostly Wi-Fi, out of fiber of which 
80% is connected to the US and NSA)
-          global connection gateways under revised secured protocol 
to protect privacy.

Everyone is welcome to share in this multi-project and expected bar 
camps, or to start his/her own one and contact us. And to contribute 
in his/her own language: in my village, it is the French language.
jfc


>On 16 July 2014 10:29:55 am parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>The problem is, this isnt even hypocrisy, and an entirely new much 
>>stronger word has to be invented for it...
>>
>>See for instance
>>
>>"The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an 
>>age when "electronic communications are used extensively by 
>>criminals of all types in the United States and abroad, from 
>>fraudsters to hackers to drug dealers, in furtherance of violations 
>>of US law.""
>>
>>Yes, global jurisdiction is needed, and that global jurisdiction 
>>should be US jurisdiction. Sure.
>>
>>Meanwhile, similar demands by other countries to have  jurisdiction 
>>on matters of their national concern is supposed to be a call to 
>>control the Internet.
>>
>>And at times when saying such think looks just too bad or illogical 
>>in polite company, say, ok multistakeholder jurisdiction is fine, 
>>knowing very well that it means nothing, which is the whole point..
>>
>>parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wednesday 16 July 2014 12:06 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>>From: Dewayne Hendricks 
>>><<mailto:dewayne at warpspeed.com>dewayne at warpspeed.com>
>>>Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Obama administration says the world's 
>>>servers are ours
>>>Date: July 14, 2014 at 3:47:28 PM EDT
>>>To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net 
>>><<mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>
>>>Reply-To: <mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>dewayne-net at warpspeed.com
>>>
>>>Obama administration says the world's servers are ours
>>>US says global reach needed to gut "fraudsters," "hackers," and 
>>>"drug dealers."
>>>By David Kravets
>>>Jul 14 2014
>>><<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours/>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours/>
>>>
>>>Global governments, the tech sector, and scholars are closely 
>>>following a legal flap in which the US Justice Department claims 
>>>that Microsoft must hand over e-mail stored in Dublin, Ireland.
>>>
>>>In essence, President Barack Obama's administration claims that 
>>>any company with operations in the United States must comply with 
>>>valid warrants for data, even if the content is stored overseas. 
>>>It's a position Microsoft and companies like Apple say is wrong, 
>>>arguing that the enforcement of US law stops at the border.
>>>
>>>A magistrate judge has already sided with the government's 
>>>position, ruling in April that "the basic principle that an entity 
>>>lawfully obligated to produce information must do so regardless of 
>>>the location of that information." Microsoft appealed to a federal 
>>>judge, and the case is set to be heard on July 31.
>>>
>>>In its briefs filed last week, the US government said that content 
>>>stored online doesn't enjoy the same type of Fourth Amendment 
>>>protections as data stored in the physical world. The government 
>>><safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/federalbrief-microsoftcase.pdf>cited 
>>>(PDF) the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a President Ronald 
>>>Reagan-era regulation:
>>>Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid 
>>>subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production. The 
>>>disclosure of records under such circumstances has never been 
>>>considered tantamount to a physical search under Fourth Amendment 
>>>principles, and Microsoft is mistaken to argue that the SCA 
>>>provides for an overseas search here. As there is no overseas 
>>>search or seizure, Microsoft's reliance on principles of 
>>>extra-territoriality and comity falls wide of the mark.
>>>
>>>Microsoft said the decision has wide-ranging, global implications. 
>>>"Congress has not authorized the issuance of warrants that reach 
>>>outside US territory," Microsoft's attorneys 
>>><http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/microsoft-challenges-us-govt-warrant-to-access-overseas-customer-data/>wrote. 
>>>"The government cannot seek and a court cannot issue a warrant 
>>>allowing federal agents to break down the doors of Microsoft's 
>>>Dublin facility."
>>>
>>>The Redmond, Washington-based company said its consumer trust is 
>>>low in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations. It told the US 
>>>judge presiding over the case that "[t]he government's position in 
>>>this case further erodes that trust and will ultimately erode the 
>>>leadership of US technologies in the global market."
>>>
>>>Companies like Apple, AT&T, Cisco, and Verizon agree. Verizon 
>>><safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/verizonamicus.pdf>said 
>>>(PDF) that a decision favoring the US would produce "dramatic 
>>>conflict with foreign data protection laws." Apple and Cisco 
>>><safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/applebriefinremicrosft.pdf>said 
>>>(PDF) that the tech sector is put "at risk" of being sanctioned by 
>>>foreign governments and that the US should seek cooperation with 
>>>foreign nations via treaties, a position the US said is not practical.
>>>
>>>The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an 
>>>age when "electronic communications are used extensively by 
>>>criminals of all types in the United States and abroad, from 
>>>fraudsters to hackers to drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US law."
>>>
>>>The e-mail the US authorities are seeking from Microsoft concerns 
>>>a drug-trafficking investigation. Microsoft often stores e-mail on 
>>>servers closest to the account holder.
>>>
>>>The senior counsel for the Irish Supreme Court wrote in a recent 
>>>filing that a US-Ireland "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty" was the 
>>><http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/10/National-Security/Graphics/SDNY%20McDowell%20Declaration.pdf>"efficient" 
>>>avenue (PDF) for the US government to obtain the e-mail held on 
>>>Microsoft's external servers.
>>>
>>>Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment expert at George Washington 
>>>University, 
>>><http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/microsoft-fights-us-search-warrant-for-customer-e-mails-held-in-overseas-server/2014/06/10/6b8416ae-f0a7-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html>said, 
>>>"The scope of the privacy laws around the world is now a very 
>>>important question, and this is the beginning of what may be a lot 
>>>of litigation on the question. So it's a big case to watch."
>>>
>>><https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>Archives 
>>><https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3>
>>>[]
>>>| 
>>><https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308>Modify 
>>>Your Subscription | 
>>><https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20140714160148:B4952B62-0B91-11E4-BC5E-F4360264DADE>Unsubscribe 
>>>Now
>>><http://www.listbox.com>
>>>[]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Members mailing list
>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/663dbd9a/attachment.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 devonrb at gmail.com  Wed Jul 16 12:28:53 2014
From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:28:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE1T72Tvo52L_=KKVAnQV-XdDE5Kv5_LvT1b+aoffX5GWZTxtQ@mail.gmail.com>

And Sala
On Jul 15, 2014 12:27 PM, "Mawaki Chango" <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on the MAG has
> been asked to provide names of people who could embody CS presence at a
> "High-Level" (ministerial) meeting during Istanbul IGF.
>
> The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names are expected
> to be recommended by close of business today. I and Deirdre as co-cos are
> traveling. Indeed after the African IGF in Abuja last week, I am in Lome
> where, alas, Internet is still a relative luxury as far as I can see, from
> the standpoint of the average literate (let alone the average population.)
> So it is likely that any request for action may take about 24 hours to be
> heeded, from my end.
>
> Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the name of Ms.
> Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that process (maybe along a second
> person.) I haven't had time to inform Deirdre about this (and probably time
> is too short for that kind of protocol.)
>
> Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2 names from
> each one of the CS larger networks in the field (or 2 names for all of
> those networks including IGC, Bestbits and NCSG), I would ask you to
> suggest a second name so that we're ready just in case.
>
> Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or from any other
> IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I notify Anriette otherwise,
> De will be our representative on and for this.
>
> I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is under
> control regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday 10:00pm UTC/GMT.
>
> I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be posted by
> Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/1f28d788/attachment.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 kichango at gmail.com  Wed Jul 16 14:26:34 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:26:34 +0000
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiAjW2BWX=cC_PnxptyDKvTdEETEBTuh0hiA8JvkUmUNuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAjW2BWX=cC_PnxptyDKvTdEETEBTuh0hiA8JvkUmUNuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9=yg-xcLRXxGWzU6vVhzLnSSd7i2fsaraZgNvtpuQLnw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I'm getting back to this now and I believe Anriette must have forwarded
names about an hour ago to whomever is concerned. I seem to remember
Deirdre has already secured her attendance at the Istanbul IGF so she has
no choice but to represent us wherever needed there :)

If my name has been added to the slate, I'm glad to accept that, post hoc,
and do my job as co-co whenever and wherever required. Just note that at
this point I have not secured funding for my participation yet. So while I
am not sure when they will render their final decision pn this slate, I do
hope they will give priority to De in the final selection (as it would be
difficult to understand why they wouldn't include at least one of the two
cocos, both of whom are put forward as the only direct nominees from IGC.)
In any case, if I were to be the one selected and the only one from IGC
names, I hope it will be possible to transfer my selection to De if
eventually I cannot attend.

Thank you all,

Mawaki


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki,
>
> As coordinators, you are both empowered to be there or at least one of you
> or alternatively a proxy or nominee from the IGC. In light of the short
> notice, you do not have to gather consensus for the support as it is part
> of administrative duties and making sure either of you reports back.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Sala
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on the MAG has
>> been asked to provide names of people who could embody CS presence at a
>> "High-Level" (ministerial) meeting during Istanbul IGF.
>>
>> The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names are
>> expected to be recommended by close of business today. I and Deirdre as
>> co-cos are traveling. Indeed after the African IGF in Abuja last week, I am
>> in Lome where, alas, Internet is still a relative luxury as far as I can
>> see, from the standpoint of the average literate (let alone the average
>> population.) So it is likely that any request for action may take about 24
>> hours to be heeded, from my end.
>>
>> Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the name of Ms.
>> Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that process (maybe along a second
>> person.) I haven't had time to inform Deirdre about this (and probably time
>> is too short for that kind of protocol.)
>>
>> Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2 names from
>> each one of the CS larger networks in the field (or 2 names for all of
>> those networks including IGC, Bestbits and NCSG), I would ask you to
>> suggest a second name so that we're ready just in case.
>>
>> Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or from any other
>> IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I notify Anriette otherwise,
>> De will be our representative on and for this.
>>
>> I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is under
>> control regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday 10:00pm UTC/GMT.
>>
>> I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be posted by
>> Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/ba54a489/attachment.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 anriette at apc.org  Wed Jul 16 14:35:59 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:35:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9=yg-xcLRXxGWzU6vVhzLnSSd7i2fsaraZgNvtpuQLnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAjW2BWX=cC_PnxptyDKvTdEETEBTuh0hiA8JvkUmUNuA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v9=yg-xcLRXxGWzU6vVhzLnSSd7i2fsaraZgNvtpuQLnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53C6C60F.5080409@apc.org>

Dear Mawaki

Have not yet sent.
But will add you and Deirdre.

Anriette


On 16/07/2014 20:26, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm getting back to this now and I believe Anriette must have 
> forwarded names about an hour ago to whomever is concerned. I seem to 
> remember Deirdre has already secured her attendance at the Istanbul 
> IGF so she has no choice but to represent us wherever needed there :)
>
> If my name has been added to the slate, I'm glad to accept that, post 
> hoc, and do my job as co-co whenever and wherever required. Just note 
> that at this point I have not secured funding for my participation 
> yet. So while I am not sure when they will render their final decision 
> pn this slate, I do hope they will give priority to De in the final 
> selection (as it would be difficult to understand why they wouldn't 
> include at least one of the two cocos, both of whom are put forward as 
> the only direct nominees from IGC.) In any case, if I were to be the 
> one selected and the only one from IGC names, I hope it will be 
> possible to transfer my selection to De if eventually I cannot attend.
>
> Thank you all,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 
> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Mawaki,
>
>     As coordinators, you are both empowered to be there or at least
>     one of you or alternatively a proxy or nominee from the IGC. In
>     light of the short notice, you do not have to gather consensus for
>     the support as it is part of administrative duties and making sure
>     either of you reports back.
>
>     Best Wishes,
>     Sala
>
>
>     On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com
>     <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Dear All,
>
>         Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on
>         the MAG has been asked to provide names of people who could
>         embody CS presence at a "High-Level" (ministerial) meeting
>         during Istanbul IGF.
>
>         The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names
>         are expected to be recommended by close of business today. I
>         and Deirdre as co-cos are traveling. Indeed after the African
>         IGF in Abuja last week, I am in Lome where, alas, Internet is
>         still a relative luxury as far as I can see, from the
>         standpoint of the average literate (let alone the average
>         population.) So it is likely that any request for action may
>         take about 24 hours to be heeded, from my end.
>
>         Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the
>         name of Ms. Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that
>         process (maybe along a second person.) I haven't had time to
>         inform Deirdre about this (and probably time is too short for
>         that kind of protocol.)
>
>         Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2
>         names from each one of the CS larger networks in the field (or
>         2 names for all of those networks including IGC, Bestbits and
>         NCSG), I would ask you to suggest a second name so that we're
>         ready just in case.
>
>         Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or
>         from any other IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I
>         notify Anriette otherwise, De will be our representative on
>         and for this.
>
>         I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is
>         under control regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday
>         10:00pm UTC/GMT.
>
>         I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be
>         posted by Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Mawaki
>
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>         To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/a0fb8035/attachment.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 kichango at gmail.com  Wed Jul 16 14:44:12 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:44:12 +0000
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
In-Reply-To: <53C6C60F.5080409@apc.org>
References: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAjW2BWX=cC_PnxptyDKvTdEETEBTuh0hiA8JvkUmUNuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9=yg-xcLRXxGWzU6vVhzLnSSd7i2fsaraZgNvtpuQLnw@mail.gmail.com> <53C6C60F.5080409@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-OgNHs69L42bb1y=TmN2qY3pv_wUaCjFwSRrNrZh0YKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Anriette,
Thanks! That works fine with me.

 Best,
Mawaki


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
wrote:

>  Dear Mawaki
>
> Have not yet sent.
> But will add you and Deirdre.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>  On 16/07/2014 20:26, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>  I'm getting back to this now and I believe Anriette must have forwarded
> names about an hour ago to whomever is concerned. I seem to remember
> Deirdre has already secured her attendance at the Istanbul IGF so she has
> no choice but to represent us wherever needed there :)
>
>  If my name has been added to the slate, I'm glad to accept that, post
> hoc, and do my job as co-co whenever and wherever required. Just note that
> at this point I have not secured funding for my participation yet. So while
> I am not sure when they will render their final decision pn this slate, I
> do hope they will give priority to De in the final selection (as it would
> be difficult to understand why they wouldn't include at least one of the
> two cocos, both of whom are put forward as the only direct nominees from
> IGC.) In any case, if I were to be the one selected and the only one from
> IGC names, I hope it will be possible to transfer my selection to De if
> eventually I cannot attend.
>
>  Thank you all,
>
>  Mawaki
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Mawaki,
>>
>> As coordinators, you are both empowered to be there or at least one of
>> you or alternatively a proxy or nominee from the IGC. In light of the short
>> notice, you do not have to gather consensus for the support as it is part
>> of administrative duties and making sure either of you reports back.
>>
>>  Best Wishes,
>> Sala
>>
>>
>>  On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear All,
>>>
>>>  Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on the MAG
>>> has been asked to provide names of people who could embody CS presence at a
>>> "High-Level" (ministerial) meeting during Istanbul IGF.
>>>
>>>  The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names are
>>> expected to be recommended by close of business today. I and Deirdre as
>>> co-cos are traveling. Indeed after the African IGF in Abuja last week, I am
>>> in Lome where, alas, Internet is still a relative luxury as far as I can
>>> see, from the standpoint of the average literate (let alone the average
>>> population.) So it is likely that any request for action may take about 24
>>> hours to be heeded, from my end.
>>>
>>>  Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the name of
>>> Ms. Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that process (maybe along a
>>> second person.) I haven't had time to inform Deirdre about this (and
>>> probably time is too short for that kind of protocol.)
>>>
>>>  Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2 names from
>>> each one of the CS larger networks in the field (or 2 names for all of
>>> those networks including IGC, Bestbits and NCSG), I would ask you to
>>> suggest a second name so that we're ready just in case.
>>>
>>>  Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or from any
>>> other IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I notify Anriette
>>> otherwise, De will be our representative on and for this.
>>>
>>>  I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is under
>>> control regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday 10:00pm UTC/GMT.
>>>
>>>  I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be posted by
>>> Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.
>>>
>>>  Thanks,
>>>
>>>  Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/0d60f818/attachment.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Jul 16 17:19:54 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:19:54 -0600
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-OgNHs69L42bb1y=TmN2qY3pv_wUaCjFwSRrNrZh0YKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAjW2BWX=cC_PnxptyDKvTdEETEBTuh0hiA8JvkUmUNuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9=yg-xcLRXxGWzU6vVhzLnSSd7i2fsaraZgNvtpuQLnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <53C6C60F.5080409@apc.org> <CACTo+v-OgNHs69L42bb1y=TmN2qY3pv_wUaCjFwSRrNrZh0YKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4EQwfm=9pYOsSCjFHQY=O7RkLTNkp7LxJ=M_O-6x2-_A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Everyone,
I need to go to be remote moderator for the next session, although the
internet connection keeps dropping.
Thank you Mawaki for doing positive thinking on my behalf but I don't have
any funding for Istanbul and I've been a bit delinquent about looking.
Perhaps Anriette's list needs to suggest people who are sure to be there?
Oh oh - the panel is going on the platform.
Later
Sorry to be so unhelpful
Deirdre


On 16 July 2014 12:44, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Anriette,
> Thanks! That works fine with me.
>
>  Best,
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Mawaki
>>
>> Have not yet sent.
>> But will add you and Deirdre.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>  On 16/07/2014 20:26, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>  I'm getting back to this now and I believe Anriette must have forwarded
>> names about an hour ago to whomever is concerned. I seem to remember
>> Deirdre has already secured her attendance at the Istanbul IGF so she has
>> no choice but to represent us wherever needed there :)
>>
>>  If my name has been added to the slate, I'm glad to accept that, post
>> hoc, and do my job as co-co whenever and wherever required. Just note that
>> at this point I have not secured funding for my participation yet. So while
>> I am not sure when they will render their final decision pn this slate, I
>> do hope they will give priority to De in the final selection (as it would
>> be difficult to understand why they wouldn't include at least one of the
>> two cocos, both of whom are put forward as the only direct nominees from
>> IGC.) In any case, if I were to be the one selected and the only one from
>> IGC names, I hope it will be possible to transfer my selection to De if
>> eventually I cannot attend.
>>
>>  Thank you all,
>>
>>  Mawaki
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Mawaki,
>>>
>>> As coordinators, you are both empowered to be there or at least one of
>>> you or alternatively a proxy or nominee from the IGC. In light of the short
>>> notice, you do not have to gather consensus for the support as it is part
>>> of administrative duties and making sure either of you reports back.
>>>
>>>  Best Wishes,
>>> Sala
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>  Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on the MAG
>>>> has been asked to provide names of people who could embody CS presence at a
>>>> "High-Level" (ministerial) meeting during Istanbul IGF.
>>>>
>>>>  The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names are
>>>> expected to be recommended by close of business today. I and Deirdre as
>>>> co-cos are traveling. Indeed after the African IGF in Abuja last week, I am
>>>> in Lome where, alas, Internet is still a relative luxury as far as I can
>>>> see, from the standpoint of the average literate (let alone the average
>>>> population.) So it is likely that any request for action may take about 24
>>>> hours to be heeded, from my end.
>>>>
>>>>  Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the name of
>>>> Ms. Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that process (maybe along a
>>>> second person.) I haven't had time to inform Deirdre about this (and
>>>> probably time is too short for that kind of protocol.)
>>>>
>>>>  Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2 names
>>>> from each one of the CS larger networks in the field (or 2 names for all of
>>>> those networks including IGC, Bestbits and NCSG), I would ask you to
>>>> suggest a second name so that we're ready just in case.
>>>>
>>>>  Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or from any
>>>> other IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I notify Anriette
>>>> otherwise, De will be our representative on and for this.
>>>>
>>>>  I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is under
>>>> control regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday 10:00pm UTC/GMT.
>>>>
>>>>  I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be posted by
>>>> Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>  Mawaki
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/de89269f/attachment.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 ocl at gih.com  Wed Jul 16 17:43:34 2014
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:43:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- IANA
 Functions Stewardship Transition Updates
In-Reply-To: <CFEC3C03.90BA%ariel.liang@icann.org>
References: <CFEC3C03.90BA%ariel.liang@icann.org>
Message-ID: <53C6F206.9050704@gih.com>

FYI / apologies for cross-posting.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- IANA Functions Stewardship
Transition Updates
Date: 	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:26:30 +0000
From: 	ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
To: 	ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org
<ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org>




ICANN News Alert
ICANN <http://www.icann.org/>


    News Alert

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-16-en

------------------------------------------------------------------------


    IANA Functions Stewardship Transition Updates

16 July 2014

On 14 March 2014, the NTIA announced
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>
its intention to transition its stewardship role of IANA functions, and
called upon ICANN to launch and facilitate a process with the community
to derive a proposal to transition the IANA functions to the global
multistakeholder community, meeting the criteria set out by the NTIA.

Following community dialogue, the process
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en>
for developing a proposal for this transition was posted on 6 June 2014.
As a part of this process, a Coordination Group will be responsible for
preparing a transitional proposal respective of the differing needs of
the various affected parties of the IANA functions.

See here for a full list of the Coordination Group Representatives
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en>.

The first face-to-face meeting of the Coordination Group will take place
in London from *08:00-17:00 UTC on 17-18 July*at the Hilton London
Metropole Hotel
<http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/united-kingdom/hilton-london-metropole-LONMETW/index.html>.

The global multistakeholder community will be able to follow the
Coordination Group's first meeting through the Virtual Meeting Room
<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/coordinationgroup/> and through audio
translations into these languages:

  * English <http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-en.m3u>
  * French <http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-fr.m3u>
  * Spanish <http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-es.m3u>
  * Chinese <http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-zh.m3u>
  * Russian <http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-ru.m3u>
  * Arabic <http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-ar.m3u>
  * Portuguese <http://stream.icann.org:8000/coordinationgroup-pt.m3u>

In addition, the community is encouraged to join the conversation
through use of the online discussion forum
<http://discuss-stewardship.icann.org/> or ICANN's dedicated IANA
Transition mailing list
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition> to discuss the
transition process.

For more information about the Coordination Group and the IANA
Function's Stewardship Transition, please visit the NTIA IANA Functions'
Stewardship Transition microsite <https://www.icann.org/stewardship>.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/6596d521/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
ALAC-Announce mailing list
ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce

At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jul 17 02:41:10 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:11:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] cast a wider net (and catch the US industry
  masqueraders in MS clothes)
Message-ID: <53C77006.3010409@itforchange.net>

he below explains the phenomenon of sudden rise of US industry led 
advocacy within India on IG issues, including through the use of the 
multi stakeholder cover. This is not unconnected to the incursions that 
US industry was able to make into civil society representational space 
as well, like recently witnessed at NetMundial... parminder


from the Indian Express 
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/cast-a-wider-net/


  Cast a wider Net

Hardeep S Puri 
<http://indianexpress.com/profile/columnist/hardeep-s-puri/> | July 17, 
2014 12:32 am

/**//*The revelation explains a phenomenon that earlier appeared 
inscrutable, that of employees of multinational internet and telecom 
majors masquerading as spokespersons of the Indian telecom and internet 
industry. */
/**/
/**/


      Summary

India needs to break out of the status quo on internet governance.


          _The summoning of the US charge d’affaires to South Block on
          July 2 on the issue of snooping by the US’s National Security
          Agency (NSA) was a welcome step. The revelation that the BJP
          was targeted for snooping as long ago as 2010 is not at all
          surprising. It can now be mentioned that immediately after
          India was elected to the United Nations Security Council in
          2010, a request was made by the permanent mission of India in
          New York to South Block, asking for safeguards against
          precisely such an eventuality._

By no stretch of definition can the then main opposition party in India 
or, for that matter, the Indian delegation to the UN, be regarded as 
requiring surveillance by the NSA if the concern is anchored in the 
desire to counter terrorism.  Equally, to try to defend the sweeping 
collection of phone and internet records on the grounds that it was only 
gathering “metadata” is profoundly misleading.

The radio silence from the UPA government on revelations by Edward 
Snowden almost two years ago that the NSA engaged in massive snooping 
operations at a global level, including telephone conversations of 
leaders of other countries, was in marked contrast to reactions from 
other countries. Brazil’s cancellation of a state visit to Washington DC 
at the invitation of President Barack Obama and the public expression of 
outrage, including the recent expulsion of the senior-most intelligence 
operative by Germany, a close ally of the US and Nato partner, stand out 
in contrast. The Indian protest under the UPA was low-level, belated, 
feeble and pro forma.

It would have been embarrassing for the government of India to condemn 
such a practice by the US if, for example, Vodafone and/ or AT&T were to 
come out with a public assertion in response that they were extending 
similar services to India at the request of the then government. Recent 
revelations by Vodafone that India was among the governments which asked 
it to snoop/ wire-tap calls, e-mails and text messages going into and 
out of the country have surprisingly not received the attention they 
should have.

The revelation explains yet another phenomenon that earlier appeared 
inscrutable, that of employees of multinational internet and telecom 
majors masquerading as spokespersons of the Indian telecom and internet 
industry. When questions relating to global internet governance acquired 
salience, this particular group cornered the space for discussion and, 
through motivated writings, sought to propagate the thesis that the 
“multi-stakeholder” model advocated globally by the multinational 
internet and telecom majors resonated in India as well, with little or 
scant regard for the long-term interests of India and Indian internet 
and telecom majors.

The NETmundial conference in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in April this year 
produced an outcome that fell far short of the expectations of most 
observers and sought to preserve the status quo. The US administration’s 
generous offer to make adjustments to its authority over ICANN has come 
with conditionalities and time-frames which have made them meaningless, 
if not impossible to achieve.

India’s principal concerns and long-term interests with regard to global 
internet governance require the renewal of our commitment to protect and 
promote the internet as an unprecedented tool of innovation and 
empowerment. India should reaffirm our adherence to all obligations 
under the various treaties on human rights to which we are a party, in 
particular to those relating to freedom of expression. We should also 
commit ourselves to all measures to bridge the “digital divide”, both 
nationally and internationally. India and Indian IT enterprises will no 
doubt need to preserve and enhance the interests of Indian users of the 
internet, whose numbers have been growing greatly in recent years.

Indian IT companies need to preserve the global competitive edge secured 
over the years. They also need to assess the possible evolution of the 
IT industry over the next 20 years or so and orient themselves to the 
changing demands of the global industry. They can thus seek to build on 
the comparative advantages that they have enjoyed till now. This will 
require encouraging creativity and innovation as well as setting up 
enterprises tailored to the next generation. India has to move up the 
value chain in the global IT industry in the long term. This would imply 
a much-needed transition from providing IT skills and back-room services 
to making its own branded services and products and leading global 
innovation in IT.

Several international public policy issues pertaining to the internet, 
including, among others, the infrastructure and management of critical 
internet resources, already stand identified by the World Summit on the 
Information Society (WSIS). These include issues of considerable 
interest and relevance to developing countries, such as the bridging of 
the digital divide, interconnection costs and participation in global 
policy development. Several new public policy issues have emerged since 
the WSIS, such as cloud computing, mass surveillance and the collection 
of metadata, the use of cyber weapons and jurisdiction.

Plurilateral agreements among developed countries on substantive policy 
issues and treaties negotiated among them have remained the dominant 
global governance model in the internet arena. The inclusion of 
developing countries in global norm-setting and design of digital 
architecture will continue to pose an important challenge in the coming 
years. Without such inclusion, the inherently global nature of the 
internet will be threatened —  there is the danger of fragmentation of 
the internet through disparate national policies.

The principal challenge before Indian policymakers is to move away from 
the short term and the cacophony organised by the status quoists, 
forcefully articulate the long-term interests of the Indian internet and 
telecom majors, and design and put in place the necessary eco-system and 
policy framework for the purpose. We should aim at building the 
next-generation editions of TCS, Infosys and Wipro, and move up the 
value chain. The Vodafone revelation has come not a day too soon, and 
will hopefully serve as yet another wake-up call.

This will require not only rejigging domestic policy, but also making 
necessary changes in articulating India’s position in international 
forums on issues relating to global internet governance. Over the last 
four years, the UPA government had allowed itself to be led by the 
spokespersons of global industry; it is high time that this was 
challenged. The government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has an 
excellent opportunity to reverse this trend, make the necessary and 
imperative course corrections, and move in the right direction.

The author, a retired diplomat and BJP member, is non-resident senior 
advisor, International Peace Institute, New York.
Views are personal

***



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140717/cd7d1885/attachment.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Jul 17 04:02:59 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:02:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] cast a wider net (and catch the US industry
  masqueraders in MS clothes)
In-Reply-To: <53C77006.3010409@itforchange.net>
References: <53C77006.3010409@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E1X7gZV-0004h6-Q8@igcaucus.org>

At 08:41 17/07/2014, parminder wrote:
>he below explains the phenomenon of sudden rise of US industry led 
>advocacy within India on IG issues, including through the use of the 
>multi stakeholder cover. This is not unconnected to the incursions 
>that US industry was able to make into civil society 
>representational space as well, like recently witnessed at 
>NetMundial... parminder

Would you mean that there are NSA sock-puppets on the internet 
governance lists?
May-be the reason why ICANN wants a forum based debate: the waste of 
time limits it to people on a pay-roll. (I stupidly thought it only 
was for IP check and further snooping on mail-combat commandos units 
like JEDIs).
jfc

>from the Indian Express 
><http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/cast-a-wider-net/>http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/cast-a-wider-net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140717/0c989b55/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Thu Jul 17 04:59:18 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:59:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] cast a wider net (and catch the US industry
  masqueraders in MS clothes)
In-Reply-To: <E1X7gYh-0004cJ-I1@igcaucus.org>
References: <53C77006.3010409@itforchange.net>
	<E1X7gYh-0004cJ-I1@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <20140717105918.5ba2da44@quill>

Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> Would you mean that there are NSA sock-puppets on the internet 
> governance lists?

I think that if none of the US intelligence agencies are working to
influence international civil society with a goal of preventing any
effective action against mass surveillance, they're not doing the job
that they get paid for.

Figuring out what kinds of actions might get undertaken with that goal
is probably best left as an exercise to the reader. :-)

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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 12:16:43 2014
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Jos=C3=A9_F=C3=A9lix_Arias_Ynche?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:16:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=BFTe_unes_a_m=C3=AD_en_LinkedIn=3F?=
Message-ID: <42147013.1601310.1405613803881.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2138.prod>

Hola, Adam:

Construye tu red profesional, descubre oportunidades y mantente en contacto en LinkedIn.

José Félix

Aceptar: https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=-hcgosr-hxqa5ppx-4z&a=preRegInvite&tracking=eml-guest-invite-cta&ek=invite_guest&invitationID=5895571519286820864&sharedKey=-lzdbfgf


Estás recibiendo mensajes sobre Invitación. Date de baja aquí: https://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=-hcgosr-hxqa5ppx-4z&t=uns&midToken=AQFmrFVhGEd36Q&tracking=eml-guest-invite-unsubscribe&ek=invite_guest&id=20061&mid=-1&aid=6g2d2dnhhojuhjo&eid=-hcgosr-hxqa5ppx-4z&email=governance%40lists%2Eigcaucus%2Eorg

Este mensaje de correo electrónico estaba dirigido a  Adam Peake. Averigua por qué incluimos esto en este enlace: http://www.linkedin.com/e/v2?e=-hcgosr-hxqa5ppx-4z&a=customerServiceUrl&ek=invite_guest&articleId=4788
&copy;2014 LinkedIn Ireland Limited, registrada en Irlanda como sociedad anónima, número de identificación 477441; oficina registradora: 70 Sir John Roberson’s Quay, Dublín 2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140717/0b7b38b9/attachment.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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Jul 17 12:53:13 2014
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:53:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] URGENT: CS Delegates at Istanbul IGF 'High Level
 Meeting'
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4EQwfm=9pYOsSCjFHQY=O7RkLTNkp7LxJ=M_O-6x2-_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v9UwDAwSU3CZ+bpuMsc_H8HFT5Fmo94=HWy8o0+HmWo_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAjW2BWX=cC_PnxptyDKvTdEETEBTuh0hiA8JvkUmUNuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9=yg-xcLRXxGWzU6vVhzLnSSd7i2fsaraZgNvtpuQLnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <53C6C60F.5080409@apc.org> <CACTo+v-OgNHs69L42bb1y=TmN2qY3pv_wUaCjFwSRrNrZh0YKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4EQwfm=9pYOsSCjFHQY=O7RkLTNkp7LxJ=M_O-6x2-_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLvJ7_f9f2ty+9GbPYfafYGiB+s9Dro=bfL5L5vU0LuNpw@mail.gmail.com>

Estoy de acuerdo, con las propuestas...no se podría tener gente preparada
para estos casos y no tener que buscar con el tiempo ajustado...me parece
es falta de previsión, se debe de llamar a consultas a todos los miembros.



*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2014-07-16 16:19 GMT-05:00 Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>:

> Dear Everyone,
> I need to go to be remote moderator for the next session, although the
> internet connection keeps dropping.
> Thank you Mawaki for doing positive thinking on my behalf but I don't have
> any funding for Istanbul and I've been a bit delinquent about looking.
> Perhaps Anriette's list needs to suggest people who are sure to be there?
> Oh oh - the panel is going on the platform.
> Later
> Sorry to be so unhelpful
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 16 July 2014 12:44, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Anriette,
>> Thanks! That works fine with me.
>>
>>  Best,
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Mawaki
>>>
>>> Have not yet sent.
>>> But will add you and Deirdre.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 16/07/2014 20:26, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>  I'm getting back to this now and I believe Anriette must have
>>> forwarded names about an hour ago to whomever is concerned. I seem to
>>> remember Deirdre has already secured her attendance at the Istanbul IGF so
>>> she has no choice but to represent us wherever needed there :)
>>>
>>>  If my name has been added to the slate, I'm glad to accept that, post
>>> hoc, and do my job as co-co whenever and wherever required. Just note that
>>> at this point I have not secured funding for my participation yet. So while
>>> I am not sure when they will render their final decision pn this slate, I
>>> do hope they will give priority to De in the final selection (as it would
>>> be difficult to understand why they wouldn't include at least one of the
>>> two cocos, both of whom are put forward as the only direct nominees from
>>> IGC.) In any case, if I were to be the one selected and the only one from
>>> IGC names, I hope it will be possible to transfer my selection to De if
>>> eventually I cannot attend.
>>>
>>>  Thank you all,
>>>
>>>  Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Hi Mawaki,
>>>>
>>>> As coordinators, you are both empowered to be there or at least one of
>>>> you or alternatively a proxy or nominee from the IGC. In light of the short
>>>> notice, you do not have to gather consensus for the support as it is part
>>>> of administrative duties and making sure either of you reports back.
>>>>
>>>>  Best Wishes,
>>>> Sala
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>>  Our colleague Anriette Esterhuysen who is also a CS member on the
>>>>> MAG has been asked to provide names of people who could embody CS presence
>>>>> at a "High-Level" (ministerial) meeting during Istanbul IGF.
>>>>>
>>>>>  The notification was sent to us about 24 hours ago, and names are
>>>>> expected to be recommended by close of business today. I and Deirdre as
>>>>> co-cos are traveling. Indeed after the African IGF in Abuja last week, I am
>>>>> in Lome where, alas, Internet is still a relative luxury as far as I can
>>>>> see, from the standpoint of the average literate (let alone the average
>>>>> population.) So it is likely that any request for action may take about 24
>>>>> hours to be heeded, from my end.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Based on the short notice, I suggest that we put forward the name of
>>>>> Ms. Deirdre Williams representing the IGC in that process (maybe along a
>>>>> second person.) I haven't had time to inform Deirdre about this (and
>>>>> probably time is too short for that kind of protocol.)
>>>>>
>>>>>  Because, it is not clear to me whether we are being asked 2 names
>>>>> from each one of the CS larger networks in the field (or 2 names for all of
>>>>> those networks including IGC, Bestbits and NCSG), I would ask you to
>>>>> suggest a second name so that we're ready just in case.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Unless I hear strong objection --either from De herself or from any
>>>>> other IGC members-- with an alternate name, and/or I notify Anriette
>>>>> otherwise, De will be our representative on and for this.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I would ask Anriette to give us, assuming some time margin is under
>>>>> control regarding the deadline for this, until Wednesday 10:00pm UTC/GMT.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I ask that any strong objection to the above suggestion be posted by
>>>>> Wednesday 800pm UTC/GMT.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>  Mawaki
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140717/de51b35a/attachment.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Jul 17 19:44:28 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:44:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] cast a wider net (and catch the US industry
  masqueraders in MS clothes)
In-Reply-To: <20140717105918.5ba2da44@quill>
References: <53C77006.3010409@itforchange.net>
 <E1X7gYh-0004cJ-I1@igcaucus.org>
 <20140717105918.5ba2da44@quill>
Message-ID: <E1X7vGF-0006if-2B@igcaucus.org>

At 10:59 17/07/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>Figuring out what kinds of actions might get undertaken with that 
>goal is probably best left as an exercise to the reader. :-)

Not necessarily. There are 8000 RFCs to explain how.
If you want to test who is whith who, talk about ISO layer six and VGNs. :-)
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 pranesh at cis-india.org  Thu Jul 17 20:36:34 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:36:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A Larger
 Say in Public Policy
Message-ID: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Rupert Murdoch echoes the calls of IG multistakeholderists, writ large
to all of public policy.  Says governments should "take a back seat".

http://goo.gl/NAZCfY

- From the Australian Associated Press:

## Media mogul tells B20 meeting in Sydney that companies must be
allowed to help shape public policy ##

[snip]
> Rupert Murdoch says business has a right to speak out on public
> policy matters, even on issues not directly related to their area
> of operation.
> 
> "Business is just as entitled to express its opinion as unions
> are," the News Corporation executive chairman told the B20 summit
> of business leaders in Sydney.
> 
> "The trouble, I find, is usually unions represent hundreds of
> thousands of voters whereas a business represents just one."
> 
> Murdoch said business had a role to play in shaping public policy
> in a democracy.
> 
> "If we feel we have a contribution to make to the debate we should
> do so. Certainly my newspapers do so every day and we far from
> regularly win the argument.
> 
> "It's very important that, if we live in a democracy, with real
> entrepreneurship, you've got to have a world of ideas to debate."
> 
> Murdoch said businesses should be involved in shaping public policy
> and also suggested governments needed to loosen constraints on
> business.
> 
> "You should be leaving the public, by the normal processes of
> demand, to provide business with the opportunities to get on with
> life and get the governments to take a back seat," he said.
> 
> The B20 is a meeting of 400 business leaders from the world's
> leading economies, gathered in Sydney to provide a list of
> recommendations to the G20 group of government leaders when they
> meet in Brisbane in November

[/snip]

- -- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
- -------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=2kcD
-----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 suresh at hserus.net  Thu Jul 17 21:04:51 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 06:34:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
 Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <14746ffefe0.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Which is much the same call that I hear civil society making - each for its 
own reasons

It is simply a symptom of excessive or ham handed regulation in some areas, 
I'd expect.



On 18 July 2014 6:07:10 am Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Rupert Murdoch echoes the calls of IG multistakeholderists, writ large
> to all of public policy.  Says governments should "take a back seat".
>
> http://goo.gl/NAZCfY
>
> - From the Australian Associated Press:
>
> ## Media mogul tells B20 meeting in Sydney that companies must be
> allowed to help shape public policy ##
>
> [snip]
> > Rupert Murdoch says business has a right to speak out on public
> > policy matters, even on issues not directly related to their area
> > of operation.
> >
> > "Business is just as entitled to express its opinion as unions
> > are," the News Corporation executive chairman told the B20 summit
> > of business leaders in Sydney.
> >
> > "The trouble, I find, is usually unions represent hundreds of
> > thousands of voters whereas a business represents just one."
> >
> > Murdoch said business had a role to play in shaping public policy
> > in a democracy.
> >
> > "If we feel we have a contribution to make to the debate we should
> > do so. Certainly my newspapers do so every day and we far from
> > regularly win the argument.
> >
> > "It's very important that, if we live in a democracy, with real
> > entrepreneurship, you've got to have a world of ideas to debate."
> >
> > Murdoch said businesses should be involved in shaping public policy
> > and also suggested governments needed to loosen constraints on
> > business.
> >
> > "You should be leaving the public, by the normal processes of
> > demand, to provide business with the opportunities to get on with
> > life and get the governments to take a back seat," he said.
> >
> > The B20 is a meeting of 400 business leaders from the world's
> > leading economies, gathered in Sydney to provide a list of
> > recommendations to the G20 group of government leaders when they
> > meet in Brisbane in November
>
> [/snip]
>
> - --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> - -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTyGwSAAoJEFUPonS5l6CpadYP/2iEDFUOl1bJzHp0cIkICSGu
> 2J7DUUp+taZp2G+dKyLSNhdInS9/VWQlkxuh7BUGAG9snngGtLryGRiuTnu5S4Jt
> SDG61Lt6tQ7UHWuWR3A0Dr4jyuzeDkWfMcAwYCJ9E2dhPcTBJleMlLxRfEP/aeZg
> ZE0/7COn1uJ5mZNJJYONRDwUe7c5Xdm7JK5uddrnv65sxMuuhWIuI+F1rA8/AN4m
> XiukIcbJ3gXFVBKxJYkkY1X+LpbDFG0kmlXNzZXCf71KX7SV4LxsHcVhTjFtvPGz
> dVgu2snK+TWX8nwbfiO4Hj2UiMvCHAgF2Fe315ugQmbVhBNkyxBvhLi4XRN456bg
> JkfawGDzgjnJypXlLMvGrrpokkw/HpdE6bR3+V8geSc9Pn/791GqXy8oxa3/ixfL
> l10yRX+RRgq7PQaNY5wk1Xf+7r/0/bNyNOYdrZ4pFJcbSgm66llNHKGqd8gnLK/m
> Ec+E6Txc3hk1QZexPJGTyMRWPR5JbiJok2m2cy+XMhoFYnimFgIUkD2IfwlbVL1d
> Zr5uVUMbWR//c7hvqpcQeBjQqAeoyowuZvm6FwMonVKkawlXpdvuy8nF0f121C49
> af1Fry239knGfmJoKozQ2jZHLEEjd+apvW6Od0qit6DEBmHHdfc/UtoMdRaatNsm
> quE69csd/OZV4WkYL50x
> =2kcD
> -----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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Jul 17 21:15:29 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:15:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
  Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <E1X7wgo-0007Ob-Gp@igcaucus.org>

At 02:36 18/07/2014, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> > "The trouble, I find, is usually unions represent hundreds of
> > thousands of voters whereas a business represents just one."

Well, this is a good idea.

When businesses are companies of people, they do vote through their 
people. When business become coporations of stockholders they should 
vote through their tax contributing stockholders. One might also 
compute the average citizen tax contribution and for business related 
issues each corporation would have as many votes as they paid average 
tax contributions. Them to chose in which country they want to pay 
taxes and run business. The Public Debt issue is also due to the "inversion".

Now, there also is the case of non-profits whch should receive a vote 
per voluntary member.

Or businesses might also this way elect the "Shop", aside of the 
"Senate" and the "House" and the whole Congress must approve the 
laws. Then I think in entire fairness, since kds are consumers, 
parents should also be proxy voters for their kids for the civil chambers.

jfc









> >
> > Murdoch said business had a role to play in shaping public policy
> > in a democracy.
> >
> > "If we feel we have a contribution to make to the debate we should
> > do so. Certainly my newspapers do so every day and we far from
> > regularly win the argument.
> >
> > "It's very important that, if we live in a democracy, with real
> > entrepreneurship, you've got to have a world of ideas to debate."
> >
> > Murdoch said businesses should be involved in shaping public policy
> > and also suggested governments needed to loosen constraints on
> > business.
> >
> > "You should be leaving the public, by the normal processes of
> > demand, to provide business with the opportunities to get on with
> > life and get the governments to take a back seat," he said.
> >
> > The B20 is a meeting of 400 business leaders from the world's
> > leading economies, gathered in Sydney to provide a list of
> > recommendations to the G20 group of government leaders when they
> > meet in Brisbane in November
>
>[/snip]
>
>- --
>Pranesh Prakash
>Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
>- -------------------
>Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
>M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
>PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1
>
>iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTyGwSAAoJEFUPonS5l6CpadYP/2iEDFUOl1bJzHp0cIkICSGu
>2J7DUUp+taZp2G+dKyLSNhdInS9/VWQlkxuh7BUGAG9snngGtLryGRiuTnu5S4Jt
>SDG61Lt6tQ7UHWuWR3A0Dr4jyuzeDkWfMcAwYCJ9E2dhPcTBJleMlLxRfEP/aeZg
>ZE0/7COn1uJ5mZNJJYONRDwUe7c5Xdm7JK5uddrnv65sxMuuhWIuI+F1rA8/AN4m
>XiukIcbJ3gXFVBKxJYkkY1X+LpbDFG0kmlXNzZXCf71KX7SV4LxsHcVhTjFtvPGz
>dVgu2snK+TWX8nwbfiO4Hj2UiMvCHAgF2Fe315ugQmbVhBNkyxBvhLi4XRN456bg
>JkfawGDzgjnJypXlLMvGrrpokkw/HpdE6bR3+V8geSc9Pn/791GqXy8oxa3/ixfL
>l10yRX+RRgq7PQaNY5wk1Xf+7r/0/bNyNOYdrZ4pFJcbSgm66llNHKGqd8gnLK/m
>Ec+E6Txc3hk1QZexPJGTyMRWPR5JbiJok2m2cy+XMhoFYnimFgIUkD2IfwlbVL1d
>Zr5uVUMbWR//c7hvqpcQeBjQqAeoyowuZvm6FwMonVKkawlXpdvuy8nF0f121C49
>af1Fry239knGfmJoKozQ2jZHLEEjd+apvW6Od0qit6DEBmHHdfc/UtoMdRaatNsm
>quE69csd/OZV4WkYL50x
>=2kcD
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 17 21:46:18 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:16:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: Blogpost:
 The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
In-Reply-To: <03e001cfa206$1c2bf4e0$5483dea0$@gmail.com>
References: <03e001cfa206$1c2bf4e0$5483dea0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <045001cfa22a$196f89a0$4c4e9ce0$@gmail.com>

<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/the-information-society-is-in-cris
is-and-what-to-do-about-it/>



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 17 23:17:55 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 08:47:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: Blogpost:
 The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
References: <03e001cfa206$1c2bf4e0$5483dea0$@gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <048901cfa236$e1e552f0$a5aff8d0$@gmail.com>

I was told that putting arrowheads at both ends would keep the URL from
breaking... but no such luck... anyway for anyone who was interested and had
problems with the link here is the TinyURL

http://tinyurl.com/oehhx8q

M
-----Original Message-----
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:16 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: FW: Blogpost:
The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it

<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/the-information-society-is-in-cris
is-and-what-to-do-about-it/>



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 18 05:19:50 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 05:19:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
 Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiRu_ORnmDtTmEyPLqQi06wRJi79MfCU2xRbG5Dp2EGjQ@mail.gmail.com>

Pranesh,

Which IG MSist is saying that governments should take a back seat?

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Rupert Murdoch echoes the calls of IG multistakeholderists, writ large
> to all of public policy.  Says governments should "take a back seat".
>
> http://goo.gl/NAZCfY
>
> - From the Australian Associated Press:
>
> ## Media mogul tells B20 meeting in Sydney that companies must be
> allowed to help shape public policy ##
>
> [snip]
>> Rupert Murdoch says business has a right to speak out on public
>> policy matters, even on issues not directly related to their area
>> of operation.
>>
>> "Business is just as entitled to express its opinion as unions
>> are," the News Corporation executive chairman told the B20 summit
>> of business leaders in Sydney.
>>
>> "The trouble, I find, is usually unions represent hundreds of
>> thousands of voters whereas a business represents just one."
>>
>> Murdoch said business had a role to play in shaping public policy
>> in a democracy.
>>
>> "If we feel we have a contribution to make to the debate we should
>> do so. Certainly my newspapers do so every day and we far from
>> regularly win the argument.
>>
>> "It's very important that, if we live in a democracy, with real
>> entrepreneurship, you've got to have a world of ideas to debate."
>>
>> Murdoch said businesses should be involved in shaping public policy
>> and also suggested governments needed to loosen constraints on
>> business.
>>
>> "You should be leaving the public, by the normal processes of
>> demand, to provide business with the opportunities to get on with
>> life and get the governments to take a back seat," he said.
>>
>> The B20 is a meeting of 400 business leaders from the world's
>> leading economies, gathered in Sydney to provide a list of
>> recommendations to the G20 group of government leaders when they
>> meet in Brisbane in November
>
> [/snip]
>
> - --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> - -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTyGwSAAoJEFUPonS5l6CpadYP/2iEDFUOl1bJzHp0cIkICSGu
> 2J7DUUp+taZp2G+dKyLSNhdInS9/VWQlkxuh7BUGAG9snngGtLryGRiuTnu5S4Jt
> SDG61Lt6tQ7UHWuWR3A0Dr4jyuzeDkWfMcAwYCJ9E2dhPcTBJleMlLxRfEP/aeZg
> ZE0/7COn1uJ5mZNJJYONRDwUe7c5Xdm7JK5uddrnv65sxMuuhWIuI+F1rA8/AN4m
> XiukIcbJ3gXFVBKxJYkkY1X+LpbDFG0kmlXNzZXCf71KX7SV4LxsHcVhTjFtvPGz
> dVgu2snK+TWX8nwbfiO4Hj2UiMvCHAgF2Fe315ugQmbVhBNkyxBvhLi4XRN456bg
> JkfawGDzgjnJypXlLMvGrrpokkw/HpdE6bR3+V8geSc9Pn/791GqXy8oxa3/ixfL
> l10yRX+RRgq7PQaNY5wk1Xf+7r/0/bNyNOYdrZ4pFJcbSgm66llNHKGqd8gnLK/m
> Ec+E6Txc3hk1QZexPJGTyMRWPR5JbiJok2m2cy+XMhoFYnimFgIUkD2IfwlbVL1d
> Zr5uVUMbWR//c7hvqpcQeBjQqAeoyowuZvm6FwMonVKkawlXpdvuy8nF0f121C49
> af1Fry239knGfmJoKozQ2jZHLEEjd+apvW6Od0qit6DEBmHHdfc/UtoMdRaatNsm
> quE69csd/OZV4WkYL50x
> =2kcD
> -----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
>



-- 
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 pwilson at apnic.net  Fri Jul 18 05:32:58 2014
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:32:58 +1000
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
 Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net>

God help the multistakeholder process if News Corp gets involved.

Paul.




On 18 Jul 2014, at 10:36 am, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Rupert Murdoch echoes the calls of IG multistakeholderists, writ large
> to all of public policy.  Says governments should "take a back seat".
> 
> http://goo.gl/NAZCfY
> 
> - From the Australian Associated Press:
> 
> ## Media mogul tells B20 meeting in Sydney that companies must be
> allowed to help shape public policy ##
> 
> [snip]
>> Rupert Murdoch says business has a right to speak out on public
>> policy matters, even on issues not directly related to their area
>> of operation.
>> 
>> "Business is just as entitled to express its opinion as unions
>> are," the News Corporation executive chairman told the B20 summit
>> of business leaders in Sydney.
>> 
>> "The trouble, I find, is usually unions represent hundreds of
>> thousands of voters whereas a business represents just one."
>> 
>> Murdoch said business had a role to play in shaping public policy
>> in a democracy.
>> 
>> "If we feel we have a contribution to make to the debate we should
>> do so. Certainly my newspapers do so every day and we far from
>> regularly win the argument.
>> 
>> "It's very important that, if we live in a democracy, with real
>> entrepreneurship, you've got to have a world of ideas to debate."
>> 
>> Murdoch said businesses should be involved in shaping public policy
>> and also suggested governments needed to loosen constraints on
>> business.
>> 
>> "You should be leaving the public, by the normal processes of
>> demand, to provide business with the opportunities to get on with
>> life and get the governments to take a back seat," he said.
>> 
>> The B20 is a meeting of 400 business leaders from the world's
>> leading economies, gathered in Sydney to provide a list of
>> recommendations to the G20 group of government leaders when they
>> meet in Brisbane in November
> 
> [/snip]
> 
> - -- 
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> - -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> 
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTyGwSAAoJEFUPonS5l6CpadYP/2iEDFUOl1bJzHp0cIkICSGu
> 2J7DUUp+taZp2G+dKyLSNhdInS9/VWQlkxuh7BUGAG9snngGtLryGRiuTnu5S4Jt
> SDG61Lt6tQ7UHWuWR3A0Dr4jyuzeDkWfMcAwYCJ9E2dhPcTBJleMlLxRfEP/aeZg
> ZE0/7COn1uJ5mZNJJYONRDwUe7c5Xdm7JK5uddrnv65sxMuuhWIuI+F1rA8/AN4m
> XiukIcbJ3gXFVBKxJYkkY1X+LpbDFG0kmlXNzZXCf71KX7SV4LxsHcVhTjFtvPGz
> dVgu2snK+TWX8nwbfiO4Hj2UiMvCHAgF2Fe315ugQmbVhBNkyxBvhLi4XRN456bg
> JkfawGDzgjnJypXlLMvGrrpokkw/HpdE6bR3+V8geSc9Pn/791GqXy8oxa3/ixfL
> l10yRX+RRgq7PQaNY5wk1Xf+7r/0/bNyNOYdrZ4pFJcbSgm66llNHKGqd8gnLK/m
> Ec+E6Txc3hk1QZexPJGTyMRWPR5JbiJok2m2cy+XMhoFYnimFgIUkD2IfwlbVL1d
> Zr5uVUMbWR//c7hvqpcQeBjQqAeoyowuZvm6FwMonVKkawlXpdvuy8nF0f121C49
> af1Fry239knGfmJoKozQ2jZHLEEjd+apvW6Od0qit6DEBmHHdfc/UtoMdRaatNsm
> quE69csd/OZV4WkYL50x
> =2kcD
> -----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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 18 06:14:13 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:14:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
  Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
 <C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <E1X855N-0000WM-IN@igcaucus.org>

At 11:32 18/07/2014, Paul Wilson wrote:
>God help the multistakeholder process if News Corp gets involved.

Paul,

are you meaning that News Corps are not (equal) stakeholders in the 
Information Society? Why would they not be on an equal footing with 
states and other stakeholders? What is worrying is an MS process 
where there are undefined "indirect" stakeholders and where 
independent users are not on an equal footing with everyone else.

He does not plead for News Corp to have a larger say than ICANN, RIR, 
manufacturer, edge provider, ISP, etc. and  other kind of 
corporations. But that the role permitted to the News Corps, and 
Corps in general, should be larger than what it is currently 
permitted in order to be in accordance to their effective weight in 
the human/computer/corporation society of today.

I hope you do not say the same about independent users (IUsers)?

Take care.
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  Fri Jul 18 06:17:20 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:47:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
 Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <E1X855I-0000Vm-Ei@igcaucus.org>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
 <C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net>
 <E1X855I-0000Vm-Ei@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <14748f9c7f8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

There are government reps and civil society groups that are just as 'good' 
ad Mr murdochs people are. They still do get a say in msm. So despite 
everything, it will survive.


On 18 July 2014 3:45:01 pm Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> At 11:32 18/07/2014, Paul Wilson wrote:
> >God help the multistakeholder process if News Corp gets involved.
>
> Paul,
>
> are you meaning that News Corps are not (equal) stakeholders in the
> Information Society? Why would they not be on an equal footing with
> states and other stakeholders? What is worrying is an MS process
> where there are undefined "indirect" stakeholders and where
> independent users are not on an equal footing with everyone else.
>
> He does not plead for News Corp to have a larger say than ICANN, RIR,
> manufacturer, edge provider, ISP, etc. and  other kind of
> corporations. But that the role permitted to the News Corps, and
> Corps in general, should be larger than what it is currently
> permitted in order to be in accordance to their effective weight in
> the human/computer/corporation society of today.
>
> I hope you do not say the same about independent users (IUsers)?
>
> Take care.
> 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 Jul 18 06:24:12 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:24:12 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Blogpost:
 The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
References: <03e001cfa206$1c2bf4e0$5483dea0$@gmail.com>
 <048901cfa236$e1e552f0$a5aff8d0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642498@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Michael,

how a global compact (see below from your IAMCR speech) could look like? Who would be the signatories and how it would differ from the WSIS (2005) intergovernmental Tunis Agenda and the NetMundial (2014) multistakeholder Principles and Roadmap?

Such a "global compact" was proposed again and again since the first WSIS PrepCom in 2002. The language "global compact" emerged from the environment movement in the 1990s (remember Franz-Josef Rademacher und Fridjof Finkebeiner in the Geneva WSIS Phase). Would it look like the CS Declaration from 2003? A Global Compact for the Internet was proposed four years ago by (now outgoing) EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes. But nothing happend. Do you have any outline/structure/language for such a compact and who should negotiate such a text and where the Project should be negotiated?

Did you see what the governments on the BRICS countries had to say to the Internet and the global Internet Governance discussion (para. 48 - 50 of the Fortelezza Declaration)last week? They more or less totally ignored the letter from the five civil society organisations and even the words "freedom of Expression" or "civil society" do not appear in the text. 

Wolfgang


Form Michael´s text in Hyderabad: 
"What is needed is a global agreement, a global compact which sets out the broad framework for an Internet in the public interest, an Internet evolving and operating in support of the public good understood in the broadest possible way. One which doesn’t restrict but rather enables the many but not allowing the continued dominance of the few; one which is based on true Internet Freedom that is the Freedom from Internet surveillance, from the domination of a single language or a single culture, Freedom for a balanced and widely distributed set of benefits from the outputs of the Information Society.

Such a global compact can in fact be a true democratically anchored multi-stakeholder initiative where national governments recognizing their needs for sovereignty and support of national interests, corporations looking for global level playing fields and stable environments for trade and markets and civil society concerned with human rights and economic and social justice can find common cause in building a new and global Information Society for the common good.

Of course, such a development is completely idealistic and yet the Internet is so important to all of us, to nation states, to the private sector in all of its various components and of course to civil society–and even to those who currently might resist such a development as undermining their current benefits and advantages–for surveillance, for control, for “excessive” profits.  If the alternative is a fragmented Internet, one which has no basis of trust, where this fundamental infrastructure develops with huge gaps and significantly weakened connections then, even they might recognize that an Internet that functions is better than one that doesn’t and if the price of doing so is to have some taming of the wild west of digital space then better a solution of compromise and finding mutual interest and benefit rather than one of winner takes all.



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein
Gesendet: Fr 18.07.2014 05:17
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: [governance] RE: Blogpost: The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
 
I was told that putting arrowheads at both ends would keep the URL from
breaking... but no such luck... anyway for anyone who was interested and had
problems with the link here is the TinyURL

http://tinyurl.com/oehhx8q

M
-----Original Message-----
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:16 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: FW: Blogpost:
The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it

<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/the-information-society-is-in-cris
is-and-what-to-do-about-it/>





-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pwilson at apnic.net  Fri Jul 18 06:31:46 2014
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:31:46 +1000
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
 Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <14748f9c7f8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org> <C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net> <E1X855I-0000Vm-Ei@igcaucus.org> <14748f9c7f8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <52EA4B5C-8F21-4A9E-8DED-D7F31244FEC7@apnic.net>

I need to watch my spontaneous comments, especially the cheeky ones.

But I was referring to the fact that, arguably, News Corp has wielded a disproportional influence over many things, including election results.  Australia is possibly their last bastion, judging by our recent results; but of course, the voters are always free to do what they feel is right.  :-)

Paul.




On 18 Jul 2014, at 8:17 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> There are government reps and civil society groups that are just as 'good' ad Mr murdochs people are. They still do get a say in msm. So despite everything, it will survive.
> 
> 
> On 18 July 2014 3:45:01 pm Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> 
>> At 11:32 18/07/2014, Paul Wilson wrote:
>> >God help the multistakeholder process if News Corp gets involved.
>> 
>> Paul,
>> 
>> are you meaning that News Corps are not (equal) stakeholders in the
>> Information Society? Why would they not be on an equal footing with
>> states and other stakeholders? What is worrying is an MS process
>> where there are undefined "indirect" stakeholders and where
>> independent users are not on an equal footing with everyone else.
>> 
>> He does not plead for News Corp to have a larger say than ICANN, RIR,
>> manufacturer, edge provider, ISP, etc. and  other kind of
>> corporations. But that the role permitted to the News Corps, and
>> Corps in general, should be larger than what it is currently
>> permitted in order to be in accordance to their effective weight in
>> the human/computer/corporation society of today.
>> 
>> I hope you do not say the same about independent users (IUsers)?
>> 
>> Take care.
>> 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  Fri Jul 18 06:41:55 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:41:55 +1000
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
 Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <52EA4B5C-8F21-4A9E-8DED-D7F31244FEC7@apnic.net>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org> <C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net> <E1X855I-0000Vm-Ei@igcaucus.org> <14748f9c7f8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52EA4B5C-8F21-4A9E-8DED-D7F31244FEC7@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <530829ACDBC749EC87FA80569EE2A80F@Toshiba>

Other Murdoch companies are already involved with internet governance,  with 
21st Century Fox a prominent member of ICC Basis,and active pursuing their 
interests (and perhaps disproportionately) at NetMundial.


Ian


-----Original Message----- 
From: Paul Wilson
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:31 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Pranesh Prakash ; Jefsey
Subject: Re: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A 
Larger Say in Public Policy

I need to watch my spontaneous comments, especially the cheeky ones.

But I was referring to the fact that, arguably, News Corp has wielded a 
disproportional influence over many things, including election results. 
Australia is possibly their last bastion, judging by our recent results; but 
of course, the voters are always free to do what they feel is right.  :-)

Paul.




On 18 Jul 2014, at 8:17 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
wrote:

> There are government reps and civil society groups that are just as 'good' 
> ad Mr murdochs people are. They still do get a say in msm. So despite 
> everything, it will survive.
>
>
> On 18 July 2014 3:45:01 pm Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>
>> At 11:32 18/07/2014, Paul Wilson wrote:
>> >God help the multistakeholder process if News Corp gets involved.
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> are you meaning that News Corps are not (equal) stakeholders in the
>> Information Society? Why would they not be on an equal footing with
>> states and other stakeholders? What is worrying is an MS process
>> where there are undefined "indirect" stakeholders and where
>> independent users are not on an equal footing with everyone else.
>>
>> He does not plead for News Corp to have a larger say than ICANN, RIR,
>> manufacturer, edge provider, ISP, etc. and  other kind of
>> corporations. But that the role permitted to the News Corps, and
>> Corps in general, should be larger than what it is currently
>> permitted in order to be in accordance to their effective weight in
>> the human/computer/corporation society of today.
>>
>> I hope you do not say the same about independent users (IUsers)?
>>
>> Take care.
>> 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  Fri Jul 18 06:53:26 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:53:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
  Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <14748f9c7f8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.n
 et>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
 <C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net>
 <E1X855I-0000Vm-Ei@igcaucus.org>
 <14748f9c7f8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <E1X85hK-0001Q8-UK@igcaucus.org>

At 12:17 18/07/2014, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>There are government reps and civil society groups that are just as 
>'good' ad Mr murdochs people are. They still do get a say in msm. So 
>despite everything, it will survive.

I just that existing civil society groups may be inflitrated by NSAs, 
but are not representing interests of Independant Users like me, 
cities and villages, trades and cultures, private corporations, NGOs 
and Libre communities as such, I am supposed to interface at the IETF.

Best
jfc



>On 18 July 2014 3:45:01 pm Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>
>>At 11:32 18/07/2014, Paul Wilson wrote:
>> >God help the multistakeholder process if News Corp gets involved.
>>
>>Paul,
>>
>>are you meaning that News Corps are not (equal) stakeholders in the
>>Information Society? Why would they not be on an equal footing with
>>states and other stakeholders? What is worrying is an MS process
>>where there are undefined "indirect" stakeholders and where
>>independent users are not on an equal footing with everyone else.
>>
>>He does not plead for News Corp to have a larger say than ICANN, RIR,
>>manufacturer, edge provider, ISP, etc. and  other kind of
>>corporations. But that the role permitted to the News Corps, and
>>Corps in general, should be larger than what it is currently
>>permitted in order to be in accordance to their effective weight in
>>the human/computer/corporation society of today.
>>
>>I hope you do not say the same about independent users (IUsers)?
>>
>>Take care.
>>jfc
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From daniel at digsys.bg  Fri Jul 18 07:02:48 2014
From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:02:48 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Blogpost:
 The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642498@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <03e001cfa206$1c2bf4e0$5483dea0$@gmail.com> <048901cfa236$e1e552f0$a5aff8d0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642498@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <53C8FED8.7090707@digsys.bg>

Hi Wolfgang and Michael,

This is indeed an very important development and plausible goal, but the 
idea that those parties will agree with it 'because it is good for 
everybody' is not idealistic, it is naive. Here is why (quoting from 
Michael's text).. Please note this is in no way critic of the Michael's 
text -- I am trying to highlight the real issues for the benefit of 
discussion.

"One which doesn’t restrict but rather enables the many but not allowing 
the continued dominance of the few; "

The reasons for any (nation) state or a corporation to exist is to 
ensure the continued dominance of the few over the many. The alternative 
has always been called "anarchy" or "chaos" and presented to the many in 
such a way that they should fear it. Therefore, here I do not see any 
way to convince the "few" to give up any of their dominance of the 
"many". In the past, such has happened for very short time during 
revolution, at the end ultimately replacing one set of "few" with 
another set... of few. Internet, by it's very nature threatens the 
dominance of those few. If let by the many, they will try to tame it too 
-- so far, what saves the Internet is it's design, which closely 
resembles inter-human behavior, at the individual level.

"Freedom from Internet surveillance"

There is no such thing as Internet surveillance. Those "few" just 
discovered that more and more people use this new environment called The 
Internet and they set up tools to perform surveillance (and related 
activities) there too. If we want to stop "the few" from doing any 
surveillance in Internet, we should also stop them from doing any 
surveillance elsewhere. If we are happy to be subject of surveillance 
during out off-line life, why should be want any different for our 
on-line life?

"from the domination of a single language"

Is it not the goal of every culture to spread their language/etc 
worldwide? Is this not something every culture does with pride? Forcing 
communities to refuse to (try to) spread their language/culture outside 
their own circle is not going to happen... because it is these cultures 
who need to decide to do it. For Internet, and computing in general 
removing the reliance on ASCII has been achieved by more education and 
developing the relevant tools. Users then would use the result, because 
it is more convenient for them, not because they were ordered to do so 
or because it was some kind of policy. We do not use ASCII on Internet 
for these reasons...

"If the alternative is a fragmented Internet"

There is a reason, why there are nation state borders and why the 
ordinary Chinese citizen cannot enter the Peoples Palace. Left at their 
devices, those "few" will make sure the Internet is fragmented. Calling 
on their common sense will not help, because they do not posses such...


Perhaps, the only way to deal with this and work towards the goal to 
"not let the dominance of few continue" is to empower the individual 
Internet users even more, with tools, education, support. The Internet 
is uniquely different from other communication networks in that all the 
intelligence resides at the end nodes. The network itself can be very 
dumb. Does not matter if someone tries to do their thing by making the 
network "smarter" (able to collect data, to alter data, to do more), as 
long as the end nodes remain fully functional, the Internet integrity 
cannot be compromised. Internet technology is constantly evolving.

I also do not see a situation, where any government would consider any 
cooperation with independent private entities (that is, such that do not 
provide bribing and other services). If they ever "cooperate", that ends 
at the moment when they "already learned it all". Until the day they 
discover "wait, but there is more" and the cycle repeats.

Sorry if I sound too cynical -- but sometimes watching these processes 
can be very entertaining.. if you forget for a moment that it's not 
funny at all.

Daniel


On 18.07.14 13:24, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> how a global compact (see below from your IAMCR speech) could look like? Who would be the signatories and how it would differ from the WSIS (2005) intergovernmental Tunis Agenda and the NetMundial (2014) multistakeholder Principles and Roadmap?
>
> Such a "global compact" was proposed again and again since the first WSIS PrepCom in 2002. The language "global compact" emerged from the environment movement in the 1990s (remember Franz-Josef Rademacher und Fridjof Finkebeiner in the Geneva WSIS Phase). Would it look like the CS Declaration from 2003? A Global Compact for the Internet was proposed four years ago by (now outgoing) EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes. But nothing happend. Do you have any outline/structure/language for such a compact and who should negotiate such a text and where the Project should be negotiated?
>
> Did you see what the governments on the BRICS countries had to say to the Internet and the global Internet Governance discussion (para. 48 - 50 of the Fortelezza Declaration)last week? They more or less totally ignored the letter from the five civil society organisations and even the words "freedom of Expression" or "civil society" do not appear in the text.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> Form Michael´s text in Hyderabad:
> "What is needed is a global agreement, a global compact which sets out the broad framework for an Internet in the public interest, an Internet evolving and operating in support of the public good understood in the broadest possible way. One which doesn’t restrict but rather enables the many but not allowing the continued dominance of the few; one which is based on true Internet Freedom that is the Freedom from Internet surveillance, from the domination of a single language or a single culture, Freedom for a balanced and widely distributed set of benefits from the outputs of the Information Society.
>
> Such a global compact can in fact be a true democratically anchored multi-stakeholder initiative where national governments recognizing their needs for sovereignty and support of national interests, corporations looking for global level playing fields and stable environments for trade and markets and civil society concerned with human rights and economic and social justice can find common cause in building a new and global Information Society for the common good.
>
> Of course, such a development is completely idealistic and yet the Internet is so important to all of us, to nation states, to the private sector in all of its various components and of course to civil society–and even to those who currently might resist such a development as undermining their current benefits and advantages–for surveillance, for control, for “excessive” profits.  If the alternative is a fragmented Internet, one which has no basis of trust, where this fundamental infrastructure develops with huge gaps and significantly weakened connections then, even they might recognize that an Internet that functions is better than one that doesn’t and if the price of doing so is to have some taming of the wild west of digital space then better a solution of compromise and finding mutual interest and benefit rather than one of winner takes all.
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein
> Gesendet: Fr 18.07.2014 05:17
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Betreff: [governance] RE: Blogpost: The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
>   
> I was told that putting arrowheads at both ends would keep the URL from
> breaking... but no such luck... anyway for anyone who was interested and had
> problems with the link here is the TinyURL
>
> http://tinyurl.com/oehhx8q
>
> M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:16 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: FW: Blogpost:
> The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
>
> <http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/the-information-society-is-in-cris
> is-and-what-to-do-about-it/>
>
>
>
>
>



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 18 07:21:18 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:51:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
 Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <530829ACDBC749EC87FA80569EE2A80F@Toshiba>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org> <C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net> <E1X855I-0000Vm-Ei@igcaucus.org> <14748f9c7f8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52EA4B5C-8F21-4A9E-8DED-D7F31244FEC7@apnic.net> <530829ACDBC749EC87FA80569EE2A80F@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <53C9032E.4020502@itforchange.net>


On Friday 18 July 2014 04:11 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Other Murdoch companies are already involved with internet 
> governance,  with 21st Century Fox a prominent member of ICC Basis,and 
> active pursuing their interests (and perhaps disproportionately) at 
> NetMundial.

Well of course.... I still cannot get over the horror of seeing the reps 
of Disney and Cisco walk over at the Net Mundial to the outcome document 
drafting group and reading out text from their small screens (yes, I 
know they were supposed to be trying to tell what an earlier version of 
the text looked like was) - while some civil society people standing by 
who butted in some comments were immediately sshhh-ed...

And right now at an ISOC group working on IG issues, the Disney rep is 
trying to tell everyone that rather than the well established policy 
term of 'local content' it is far better to use 'relevant content'. No 
prizes for guessing why.  ... There was a time when speaking on an issue 
in this manner in a policy forum when there was such a keen conflict of 
interest involved was a clear no no. But then that was before the days 
of multistakeholderism.

Also right now the framing document for the main session on net 
neutrality (which has been successfully resisted for so long by an MS 
MAG) is thoroughly colored with track changes put in by AT and T and 
Verizons of this world....

Whom are we really fooling here .....

parminder

>
>
> Ian
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:31 PM
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Pranesh Prakash ; Jefsey
> Subject: Re: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A 
> Larger Say in Public Policy
>
> I need to watch my spontaneous comments, especially the cheeky ones.
>
> But I was referring to the fact that, arguably, News Corp has wielded 
> a disproportional influence over many things, including election 
> results. Australia is possibly their last bastion, judging by our 
> recent results; but of course, the voters are always free to do what 
> they feel is right.  :-)
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
> On 18 Jul 2014, at 8:17 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> There are government reps and civil society groups that are just as 
>> 'good' ad Mr murdochs people are. They still do get a say in msm. So 
>> despite everything, it will survive.
>>
>>
>> On 18 July 2014 3:45:01 pm Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 11:32 18/07/2014, Paul Wilson wrote:
>>> >God help the multistakeholder process if News Corp gets involved.
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> are you meaning that News Corps are not (equal) stakeholders in the
>>> Information Society? Why would they not be on an equal footing with
>>> states and other stakeholders? What is worrying is an MS process
>>> where there are undefined "indirect" stakeholders and where
>>> independent users are not on an equal footing with everyone else.
>>>
>>> He does not plead for News Corp to have a larger say than ICANN, RIR,
>>> manufacturer, edge provider, ISP, etc. and  other kind of
>>> corporations. But that the role permitted to the News Corps, and
>>> Corps in general, should be larger than what it is currently
>>> permitted in order to be in accordance to their effective weight in
>>> the human/computer/corporation society of today.
>>>
>>> I hope you do not say the same about independent users (IUsers)?
>>>
>>> Take care.
>>> 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 gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Jul 18 07:40:02 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:10:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: Blogpost:
 The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642498@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <03e001cfa206$1c2bf4e0$5483dea0$@gmail.com> <048901cfa236$e1e552f0$a5aff8d0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642498@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <01a301cfa27d$056ec170$104c4450$@gmail.com>

Hi Wolfgang,

 

Thanks for your comments/questions. These are all good and useful and I
don't know that I can answer all of them... Many/most of these questions
have intrigued/intoxicated/infuriated a good proportion of the folks on this
list for 10 years or more and it would be rather presumptuous of me to say
somewhat flippantly that I have the answers...

 

The comments were given to a fairly large audience of Communications
academics only a very very few of whom have any real knowledge of Internet
Governance issues so the intent of my talk was to present the
problem(atique) as I saw it and then to suggest a very very general way
forward (even my wife thought that part was a bit “underdeveloped” :)

 

That being said as preliminary let me respond to your comments inline...

 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 3:54 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Blogpost:
The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it

 

Hi Michael,

[MG>] Let me first start with a question to you... Do I take your silence on
the first part of the paper as consent to the analysis/observations that I
made there... If so, then I think your questions need to be framed in the
context of how do we move forward given the current "crisis" because if it
is a current or emerging crisis then the range of what is possible/feasible
changes quite dramatically...

 

 

how a global compact (see below from your IAMCR speech) could look like? Who
would be the signatories and how it would differ from the WSIS (2005)
intergovernmental Tunis Agenda and the NetMundial (2014) multistakeholder
Principles and Roadmap?

[MG>] I really don't know but I do know that a "compact" being promoted by
Brazil, Germany, France and India, each of whom has a "state level"
grievance (set of issues it wants/feels the need to have addressed) would
have rather more weight than rather vague good wishes towards an equally
vague agreement among parties who don't see themselves as having very much
in common beyond good fellow feelings in these matters.  Whether it will be
these actors or others or they and others I don’t really know, but if you
agree that some sort of crisis point has been reached or that we are on a
trajectory to some sort of crisis point then a group of actors supportive of
an initiative such as a "compact" is very likely to emerge.  The specific
nature of such a "compact" will of course, very much depend on the issues it
is meant to address and the lead actors who are attempting to address these.

 

 

Such a "global compact" was proposed again and again since the first WSIS
PrepCom in 2002. The language "global compact" emerged from the environment
movement in the 1990s (remember Franz-Josef Rademacher und Fridjof
Finkebeiner in the Geneva WSIS Phase). Would it look like the CS Declaration
from 2003? A Global Compact for the Internet was proposed four years ago by
(now outgoing) EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes. But nothing happend. 

[MG>] see my comments above

 

 

Do you have any outline/structure/language for such a compact and who should
negotiate such a text and where the Project should be negotiated?

[MG>] see my comments above
 I don’t see much point in speculating on this
in advance of a clearer picture of who might be driving this and what their
issues might be (but I think it is fair to say that the JNC note to the
BRICS was (to my mind) an attempt to move those matters along a bit based in
part on what we know about the concerns specifically of India and Brazil).

 

 

Did you see what the governments on the BRICS countries had to say to the
Internet and the global Internet Governance discussion (para. 48 - 50 of the
Fortelezza Declaration)last week? They more or less totally ignored the
letter from the five civil society organisations and even the words "freedom
of Expression" or "civil society" do not appear in the text. 

[MG>] yes, I did see that and noted similar things to what you noted but
these are still early days in this new post-Snowden (Information Society
crisis) era and the BRICS clearly had other fish to fry at this time—most
notably creating a major institution which at least has the potential of
being outside of the Washington consensus and post-WWII Breton Oaks divvying
up of the power structure of the world.

 

M

 

Wolfgang

 

 

Form Michael´s text in Hyderabad: 

"What is needed is a global agreement, a global compact which sets out the
broad framework for an Internet in the public interest, an Internet evolving
and operating in support of the public good understood in the broadest
possible way. One which doesn’t restrict but rather enables the many but not
allowing the continued dominance of the few; one which is based on true
Internet Freedom that is the Freedom from Internet surveillance, from the
domination of a single language or a single culture, Freedom for a balanced
and widely distributed set of benefits from the outputs of the Information
Society.

 

Such a global compact can in fact be a true democratically anchored
multi-stakeholder initiative where national governments recognizing their
needs for sovereignty and support of national interests, corporations
looking for global level playing fields and stable environments for trade
and markets and civil society concerned with human rights and economic and
social justice can find common cause in building a new and global
Information Society for the common good.

 

Of course, such a development is completely idealistic and yet the Internet
is so important to all of us, to nation states, to the private sector in all
of its various components and of course to civil society–and even to those
who currently might resist such a development as undermining their current
benefits and advantages–for surveillance, for control, for “excessive”
profits.  If the alternative is a fragmented Internet, one which has no
basis of trust, where this fundamental infrastructure develops with huge
gaps and significantly weakened connections then, even they might recognize
that an Internet that functions is better than one that doesn’t and if the
price of doing so is to have some taming of the wild west of digital space
then better a solution of compromise and finding mutual interest and benefit
rather than one of winner takes all.

 

 

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von:  <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein

Gesendet: Fr 18.07.2014 05:17

An:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

Betreff: [governance] RE: Blogpost:
The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it

 

I was told that putting arrowheads at both ends would keep the URL from
breaking... but no such luck... anyway for anyone who was interested and had
problems with the link here is the TinyURL

 

 <http://tinyurl.com/oehhx8q> http://tinyurl.com/oehhx8q

 

M

-----Original Message-----

From: michael gurstein [ <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>
mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:16 AM

To:  <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> governance at lists.igcaucus.org

Subject: FW: Blogpost:

The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it

 

<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/the-information-society-is-in-cris

is-and-what-to-do-about-it/>

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140718/967f24ba/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jul 18 08:06:36 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:36:36 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Blogpost:
 The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642498@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <03e001cfa206$1c2bf4e0$5483dea0$@gmail.com> <048901cfa236$e1e552f0$a5aff8d0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642498@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <53C90DCC.2050106@itforchange.net>


On Friday 18 July 2014 03:54 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> how a global compact (see below from your IAMCR speech) could look like? Who would be the signatories and how it would differ from the WSIS (2005) intergovernmental Tunis Agenda and the NetMundial (2014) multistakeholder Principles and Roadmap?

First of all perhaps we could just ensure that the big corporations do 
not write a good part of the text (see in this regard my previous 
email)... You say below that the term global compact emerged from the 
environment movement. Think of the horror with which that movement will 
react to the spectacle of a Shell or BP writing global normative texts 
on environment protection.
>
> Such a "global compact" was proposed again and again since the first WSIS PrepCom in 2002. The language "global compact" emerged from the environment movement in the 1990s (remember Franz-Josef Rademacher und Fridjof Finkebeiner in the Geneva WSIS Phase). Would it look like the CS Declaration from 2003? A Global Compact for the Internet was proposed four years ago by (now outgoing) EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes. But nothing happend. Do you have any outline/structure/language for such a compact and who should negotiate such a text and where the Project should be negotiated?

Pl see above. As long as dominant commercial interests can be kept away 
from negotiating the text, all possibilities of how do we configure 
global public interests are fine, and one is ready to explore them.... 
BTW, what do you think where and how should it be negotiated?
>
> Did you see what the governments on the BRICS countries had to say to the Internet and the global Internet Governance discussion (para. 48 - 50 of the Fortelezza Declaration)last week? They more or less totally ignored the letter from the five civil society organisations and even the words "freedom of Expression" or "civil society" do not appear in the text.

You are doing a very selective picking here. For instance, the BRICS 
statement out-rightly condemns mass surveillance. You'd perhaps remember 
that efforts to put such condemnation of mass surveillance into the Net 
Mundial outcome document (your darling document :) ) was not allowed by 
some distinctly non BRICS countries. Then the BRICS text seeks 
de-weaponinsing cyberspace and using the Internet only for  peaceful 
purposes, and US and its allies do not allow this kind of stuff to get 
into any international agreed text.

BTW the BRICS text does mention civil society.

parminder




>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> Form Michael´s text in Hyderabad:
> "What is needed is a global agreement, a global compact which sets out the broad framework for an Internet in the public interest, an Internet evolving and operating in support of the public good understood in the broadest possible way. One which doesn’t restrict but rather enables the many but not allowing the continued dominance of the few; one which is based on true Internet Freedom that is the Freedom from Internet surveillance, from the domination of a single language or a single culture, Freedom for a balanced and widely distributed set of benefits from the outputs of the Information Society.
>
> Such a global compact can in fact be a true democratically anchored multi-stakeholder initiative where national governments recognizing their needs for sovereignty and support of national interests, corporations looking for global level playing fields and stable environments for trade and markets and civil society concerned with human rights and economic and social justice can find common cause in building a new and global Information Society for the common good.
>
> Of course, such a development is completely idealistic and yet the Internet is so important to all of us, to nation states, to the private sector in all of its various components and of course to civil society–and even to those who currently might resist such a development as undermining their current benefits and advantages–for surveillance, for control, for “excessive” profits.  If the alternative is a fragmented Internet, one which has no basis of trust, where this fundamental infrastructure develops with huge gaps and significantly weakened connections then, even they might recognize that an Internet that functions is better than one that doesn’t and if the price of doing so is to have some taming of the wild west of digital space then better a solution of compromise and finding mutual interest and benefit rather than one of winner takes all.
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein
> Gesendet: Fr 18.07.2014 05:17
> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Betreff: [governance] RE: Blogpost: The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
>   
> I was told that putting arrowheads at both ends would keep the URL from
> breaking... but no such luck... anyway for anyone who was interested and had
> problems with the link here is the TinyURL
>
> http://tinyurl.com/oehhx8q
>
> M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:16 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: FW: Blogpost:
> The-information-society-is-in-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it
>
> <http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/the-information-society-is-in-cris
> is-and-what-to-do-about-it/>
>
>
>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri Jul 18 09:20:44 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:50:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
 Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <53C9032E.4020502@itforchange.net>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org>
	<C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net>
	<E1X855I-0000Vm-Ei@igcaucus.org>
	<14748f9c7f8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<52EA4B5C-8F21-4A9E-8DED-D7F31244FEC7@apnic.net>
	<530829ACDBC749EC87FA80569EE2A80F@Toshiba>
	<53C9032E.4020502@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0GCFtnt-rTPqgTZbje-1qo+hBt346JpP_DVBWVygR6iFw@mail.gmail.com>

I wonder where this perception of Rupert Murdoch comes from. Tomorrow Never
Dies, perhaps? Interestingly it was the first movie made after Broccoli's
death.

Business has a right to speak out on public policy matters, even on issues
> not directly related to their area of operation.
> Business is just as entitled to express its opinion as unions are.
> Murdoch said business had a role to play in shaping public policy in a
> democracy.
> If we feel we have a contribution to make to the debate we should do so.
> Certainly my newspapers do so every day and we far from regularly win the
> argument.
> It's very important that, if we live in a democracy, with real
> entrepreneurship, you've got to have a world of ideas to debate.
> Businesses should be involved in shaping public policy
> Governments need to loosen constraints on business.


What is wrong with all this?  This is a position by a powerful businessman
and it is good for the multi-stakeholder model. I view this as a very
positive development and I feel that Rupert Murdoch could pursue this
further and bring together like minded businessmen from every where to
share these views.

(About Governments taking a back seat, I am not sure if he meant government
out of governance. He could not possibly have meant that.)
​

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>



​
<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>



On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:51 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
> On Friday 18 July 2014 04:11 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> Other Murdoch companies are already involved with internet governance,
>>  with 21st Century Fox a prominent member of ICC Basis,and active pursuing
>> their interests (and perhaps disproportionately) at NetMundial.
>>
>
> Well of course.... I still cannot get over the horror of seeing the reps
> of Disney and Cisco walk over at the Net Mundial to the outcome document
> drafting group and reading out text from their small screens (yes, I know
> they were supposed to be trying to tell what an earlier version of the text
> looked like was) - while some civil society people standing by who butted
> in some comments were immediately sshhh-ed...
>
> And right now at an ISOC group working on IG issues, the Disney rep is
> trying to tell everyone that rather than the well established policy term
> of 'local content' it is far better to use 'relevant content'. No prizes
> for guessing why.  ... There was a time when speaking on an issue in this
> manner in a policy forum when there was such a keen conflict of interest
> involved was a clear no no. But then that was before the days of
> multistakeholderism.
>
> Also right now the framing document for the main session on net neutrality
> (which has been successfully resisted for so long by an MS MAG) is
> thoroughly colored with track changes put in by AT and T and Verizons of
> this world....
>
> Whom are we really fooling here .....
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:31 PM
>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Pranesh Prakash ; Jefsey
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
>> Larger Say in Public Policy
>>
>> I need to watch my spontaneous comments, especially the cheeky ones.
>>
>> But I was referring to the fact that, arguably, News Corp has wielded a
>> disproportional influence over many things, including election results.
>> Australia is possibly their last bastion, judging by our recent results;
>> but of course, the voters are always free to do what they feel is right.
>>  :-)
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Jul 2014, at 8:17 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  There are government reps and civil society groups that are just as
>>> 'good' ad Mr murdochs people are. They still do get a say in msm. So
>>> despite everything, it will survive.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 July 2014 3:45:01 pm Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  At 11:32 18/07/2014, Paul Wilson wrote:
>>>> >God help the multistakeholder process if News Corp gets involved.
>>>>
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> are you meaning that News Corps are not (equal) stakeholders in the
>>>> Information Society? Why would they not be on an equal footing with
>>>> states and other stakeholders? What is worrying is an MS process
>>>> where there are undefined "indirect" stakeholders and where
>>>> independent users are not on an equal footing with everyone else.
>>>>
>>>> He does not plead for News Corp to have a larger say than ICANN, RIR,
>>>> manufacturer, edge provider, ISP, etc. and  other kind of
>>>> corporations. But that the role permitted to the News Corps, and
>>>> Corps in general, should be larger than what it is currently
>>>> permitted in order to be in accordance to their effective weight in
>>>> the human/computer/corporation society of today.
>>>>
>>>> I hope you do not say the same about independent users (IUsers)?
>>>>
>>>> Take care.
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140718/fb0dfd0a/attachment.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 wjdrake at gmail.com  Fri Jul 18 09:49:58 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:49:58 +0200
Subject: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A
 Larger Say in Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0GCFtnt-rTPqgTZbje-1qo+hBt346JpP_DVBWVygR6iFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53C86C12.9070804@cis-india.org> <C8F0D157-B3DC-44B0-9DA2-F96ED498F9AB@apnic.net> <E1X855I-0000Vm-Ei@igcaucus.org> <14748f9c7f8.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <52EA4B5C-8F21-4A9E-8DED-D7F31244FEC7@apnic.net> <530829ACDBC749EC87FA80569EE2A80F@Toshiba> <53C9032E.4020502@itforchange.net> <CAHyAo0GCFtnt-rTPqgTZbje-1qo+hBt346JpP_DVBWVygR6iFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C41F7ED-2060-4EDF-A183-28E0B37C05A0@gmail.com>


On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:20 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder where this perception of Rupert Murdoch comes from. Tomorrow Never Dies, perhaps? Interestingly it was the first movie made after Broccoli's death. 

Mr. Burns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O3ceqa2lIo


> 
> Business has a right to speak out on public policy matters, even on issues not directly related to their area of operation.
> Business is just as entitled to express its opinion as unions are.
> Murdoch said business had a role to play in shaping public policy in a democracy.
> If we feel we have a contribution to make to the debate we should do so. Certainly my newspapers do so every day and we far from regularly win the argument.
> It's very important that, if we live in a democracy, with real entrepreneurship, you've got to have a world of ideas to debate.
> Businesses should be involved in shaping public policy
> Governments need to loosen constraints on business.
> 
> 
> What is wrong with all this?  This is a position by a powerful businessman and it is good for the multi-stakeholder model. I view this as a very positive development and I feel that Rupert Murdoch could pursue this further and bring together like minded businessmen from every where to share these views.
> 
> (About Governments taking a back seat, I am not sure if he meant government out of governance. He could not possibly have meant that.)
> 
> ​
> Sivasubramanian M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:51 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> On Friday 18 July 2014 04:11 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Other Murdoch companies are already involved with internet governance,  with 21st Century Fox a prominent member of ICC Basis,and active pursuing their interests (and perhaps disproportionately) at NetMundial.
> 
> Well of course.... I still cannot get over the horror of seeing the reps of Disney and Cisco walk over at the Net Mundial to the outcome document drafting group and reading out text from their small screens (yes, I know they were supposed to be trying to tell what an earlier version of the text looked like was) - while some civil society people standing by who butted in some comments were immediately sshhh-ed...
> 
> And right now at an ISOC group working on IG issues, the Disney rep is trying to tell everyone that rather than the well established policy term of 'local content' it is far better to use 'relevant content'. No prizes for guessing why.  ... There was a time when speaking on an issue in this manner in a policy forum when there was such a keen conflict of interest involved was a clear no no. But then that was before the days of multistakeholderism.
> 
> Also right now the framing document for the main session on net neutrality (which has been successfully resisted for so long by an MS MAG) is thoroughly colored with track changes put in by AT and T and Verizons of this world....
> 
> Whom are we really fooling here .....
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:31 PM
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Pranesh Prakash ; Jefsey
> Subject: Re: [governance] Rupert Murdoch Says Businesses Should Have A Larger Say in Public Policy
> 
> I need to watch my spontaneous comments, especially the cheeky ones.
> 
> But I was referring to the fact that, arguably, News Corp has wielded a disproportional influence over many things, including election results. Australia is possibly their last bastion, judging by our recent results; but of course, the voters are always free to do what they feel is right.  :-)
> 
> Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 18 Jul 2014, at 8:17 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> There are government reps and civil society groups that are just as 'good' ad Mr murdochs people are. They still do get a say in msm. So despite everything, it will survive.
> 
> 
> On 18 July 2014 3:45:01 pm Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> 
> At 11:32 18/07/2014, Paul Wilson wrote:
> >God help the multistakeholder process if News Corp gets involved.
> 
> Paul,
> 
> are you meaning that News Corps are not (equal) stakeholders in the
> Information Society? Why would they not be on an equal footing with
> states and other stakeholders? What is worrying is an MS process
> where there are undefined "indirect" stakeholders and where
> independent users are not on an equal footing with everyone else.
> 
> He does not plead for News Corp to have a larger say than ICANN, RIR,
> manufacturer, edge provider, ISP, etc. and  other kind of
> corporations. But that the role permitted to the News Corps, and
> Corps in general, should be larger than what it is currently
> permitted in order to be in accordance to their effective weight in
> the human/computer/corporation society of today.
> 
> I hope you do not say the same about independent users (IUsers)?
> 
> Take care.
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140718/19bea79a/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jul 19 13:17:42 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 22:47:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] the community and Internet governance
Message-ID: <53CAA836.9000409@itforchange.net>


At the same plenary of the recent meeting of International Association 
for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR) where Michael Gurstein 
presented the contours of the information society crisis 
<http://tinyurl.com/oehhx8q>, Anita Gurumurthy of IT for Change spoke 
about "Community 
<http://www.itforchange.net/IT-for-Change-at-IAMCR-2014>level 
initiatives and the debate on Internet governance 
<http://www.itforchange.net/IT-for-Change-at-IAMCR-2014>".

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140719/ecd1af0f/attachment.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  Sun Jul 20 05:06:59 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:36:59 +0530
Subject: [governance] Really Big Data: Crisis in the Information Society (3)
Message-ID: <06f601cfa3f9$fa356060$eea02120$@gmail.com>

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/06/18/nsa-surveillance-secre
t-cable-partners-revealed-rampart-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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jul 20 09:09:19 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 08:09:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] The rise of data and the death of politics
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjDbNP1Th8i2tpMuvdpA0j91ivsmg1tavc7nyWw+6+9sg@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/20/rise-of-data-death-of-politics-evgeny-morozov-algorithmic-regulation

-- 
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 snegho at gmail.com  Mon Jul 21 04:00:31 2014
From: snegho at gmail.com (Snehashish Ghosh)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:30:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Text-Transcript from the first ICG meeting
Message-ID: <CABFybevyoS+FNjboo21m9DVxGgZQypda=dw-ZohLuu30gKSH8Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

ICANN has put the audio transcript from the First Meeting of the IANA
Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) - July 17-18, 2014. But
they haven't put up the text-transcript. I was wondering whether this was
done to ensure accuracy of the transcripts.

But more importantly I would be grateful, if anyone did archive the live
text stream and could kindly share it on the mailing list.

Thank you.

Regards,
Snehashish
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140721/fb640d9e/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jul 21 11:20:52 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:50:52 +0530
Subject: [governance] Global trade in medicines - we have a new regulator
Message-ID: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net>


    US pharma industry takes up new levers to control global trade in
    medicines. (Dont be surprised if sale generic drugs is suppressed
    and medicine price soars). parminder



    http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/07/21/can-the-dot-pharmacy-new-generic-domain-name-be-impartial/?utm_source=IP-Watch+Subscribers&utm_campaign=f51d53bf4b-DAILY_SUMMARY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b78685696b-f51d53bf4b-352131825



    Can The Dot Pharmacy New Generic Domain Be Impartial?

By Catherine Saez <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/catherine/> and 
William New <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/william/>, Intellectual 
Property Watch

New generic top-level domain names seem set to be a constant source of 
discussions and dissension. The domain “.pharmacy” has been awarded to a 
United States pharmacy association with industry backing, stirring 
concerns among civil society and others. But the association insists it 
will work in an impartial manner to ensure safety of online 
pharmaceutical sales.

The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) announced in June 
that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 
decided upon NABP becoming the registry operator of the new “.pharmacy” 
domain.

This “will soon provide a means for identifying safe online pharmacies 
and resources,” according to NABP 
<https://www.nabp.net/news/nabp-executes-registry-agreement-with-icann-for-pharmacy-domain--2>, 
which adds that under the agreement with ICANN, the new generic 
top-level domain (gTLD) “will be available only to legitimate online 
pharmacies and related entities located in the United States or other 
countries.”

The pharmacy gTLD is expected to be launched by NABP by autumn 2014.

However, according to Gabriel Levitt, vice-president of the company 
PharmacyChecker.com <https://www.pharmacychecker.com/>, the main funders 
of the NABP application are Eli Lily, Merck and Pfizer, as shown on NABP 
“coalition support 
<https://www.nabp.net/programs/pharmacy/pharmacy-and-nabp/coalition-support>” 
web page.

The NABP application for the .pharmacy domain has been challenged in the 
past at ICANN by several groups, such as Public Citizen 
<https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12145>, 
Knowledge Ecology International 
<https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12168>, 
and the Canadian International Pharmacy Association 
<https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12174>.

According to Levitt, NABP “is apparently going much further than just 
creating rules for online pharmacies” as it “will also decide which 
companies, advocacy groups and other entities – such as those advocating 
policies to expand access to affordable medications – can obtain the 
.pharmacy domain ending,” he said.

“NABP will become a global ICANN registry, dominated by an American 
pharmacy board association, funded by the big three drug companies,” he 
alleged.

In a response 
<http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/applicants/23may13/gac-advice-response-1-1040-55064-en.pdf> 
[pdf] to the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC), the NABP sought 
to settle concerns, arguing that it is “an impartial professional 
organization that supports the state boards of pharmacy in creating 
uniform regulations to protect public health,” and that it will work 
through an advisory committee with members of the pharmacy community to 
develop standards of operation for all domain registrants.

The vast majority of websites currently selling pharmaceuticals online 
are doing so illegally, the response states.

“NABP plans to operate .PHARMACY in line with [its] core mission of 
promoting public health and patient safety,” and will operate it using a 
“tightly controlled registration policy” restricting second-level 
registrations to the domain to licensed pharmacies and “prescription 
drug-related entities that are in good standing and in compliance with 
all applicable laws in the jurisdictions in which they dispense, ship or 
sell medications and that agree to conduct business according to all 
standards of operation.”


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140721/59a58ae9/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Mon Jul 21 11:28:42 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:58:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] Global trade in medicines - we have a new
 regulator
In-Reply-To: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net>
References: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <02213072-858A-486F-8BC9-B5A0079CF47D@hserus.net>

One undeniable fact, unfortunately, is that the number of scam artists engaged in selling ,education online, often without proper prescriptions, is far higher than the number of legitimate online medicine stores.   You might think back to the amount of spam you receive that advertises virility pills, or even controlled drugs such as steroids and narcotics.

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Jul-2014, at 20:50, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> US pharma industry takes up new levers to control global trade in medicines. (Dont be surprised if sale generic drugs is suppressed and medicine price soars). parminder
> 
> 
> http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/07/21/can-the-dot-pharmacy-new-generic-domain-name-be-impartial/?utm_source=IP-Watch+Subscribers&utm_campaign=f51d53bf4b-DAILY_SUMMARY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b78685696b-f51d53bf4b-352131825 
> Can The Dot Pharmacy New Generic Domain Be Impartial?
> 
> By Catherine Saez and William New, Intellectual Property Watch
> 
> New generic top-level domain names seem set to be a constant source of discussions and dissension. The domain “.pharmacy” has been awarded to a United States pharmacy association with industry backing, stirring concerns among civil society and others. But the association insists it will work in an impartial manner to ensure safety of online pharmaceutical sales.
> 
> The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) announced in June that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) decided upon NABP becoming the registry operator of the new “.pharmacy” domain.
> 
> This “will soon provide a means for identifying safe online pharmacies and resources,” according to NABP, which adds that under the agreement with ICANN, the new generic top-level domain (gTLD) “will be available only to legitimate online pharmacies and related entities located in the United States or other countries.”
> 
> The pharmacy gTLD is expected to be launched by NABP by autumn 2014.
> 
> However, according to Gabriel Levitt, vice-president of the company PharmacyChecker.com, the main funders of the NABP application are Eli Lily, Merck and Pfizer, as shown on NABP “coalition support” web page.
> 
> The NABP application for the .pharmacy domain has been challenged in the past at ICANN by several groups, such as Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, and the Canadian International Pharmacy Association.
> 
> According to Levitt, NABP “is apparently going much further than just creating rules for online pharmacies” as it “will also decide which companies, advocacy groups and other entities – such as those advocating policies to expand access to affordable medications – can obtain the .pharmacy domain ending,” he said.
> 
> “NABP will become a global ICANN registry, dominated by an American pharmacy board association, funded by the big three drug companies,” he alleged.
> 
> In a response [pdf] to the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC), the NABP sought to settle concerns, arguing that it is “an impartial professional organization that supports the state boards of pharmacy in creating uniform regulations to protect public health,” and that it will work through an advisory committee with members of the pharmacy community to develop standards of operation for all domain registrants.
> 
> The vast majority of websites currently selling pharmaceuticals online are doing so illegally, the response states.
> 
> “NABP plans to operate .PHARMACY in line with [its] core mission of promoting public health and patient safety,” and will operate it using a “tightly controlled registration policy” restricting second-level registrations to the domain to licensed pharmacies and “prescription drug-related entities that are in good standing and in compliance with all applicable laws in the jurisdictions in which they dispense, ship or sell medications and that agree to conduct business according to all standards of operation.”
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140721/0b7c9722/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jul 21 11:37:45 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:07:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] Global trade in medicines - we have a new
 regulator
In-Reply-To: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net>
References: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53CD33C9.1030705@itforchange.net>

This is my question to all ICANN-ist here, that great multistakeholder 
body supposed to be representing the global interest.

Why should the question of who is a legitimate actor for online medicine 
trade be decided by the US pharma industry, the most despised actor 
among public health practitioners and actors for trying to maintain 
unaffordably high prices for medicines the world over, and suppressing 
manufacture and trade of the much much cheaper generic dyrugs (in which, 
India is incidently a big players).

Why should ICANN become a lever in the hands of big pharma?

Why cannot for instance WHO manage .pharmacy?

Social activists from developing countries protest this outrage. Such 
things cannot be allowed.

parminder



On Monday 21 July 2014 08:50 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
>     US pharma industry takes up new levers to control global trade in
>     medicines. (Dont be surprised if sale generic drugs is suppressed
>     and medicine price soars). parminder
>
>
>
>     http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/07/21/can-the-dot-pharmacy-new-generic-domain-name-be-impartial/?utm_source=IP-Watch+Subscribers&utm_campaign=f51d53bf4b-DAILY_SUMMARY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b78685696b-f51d53bf4b-352131825
>
>
>
>     Can The Dot Pharmacy New Generic Domain Be Impartial?
>
> By Catherine Saez <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/catherine/> and 
> William New <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/william/>, Intellectual 
> Property Watch
>
> New generic top-level domain names seem set to be a constant source of 
> discussions and dissension. The domain “.pharmacy” has been awarded to 
> a United States pharmacy association with industry backing, stirring 
> concerns among civil society and others. But the association insists 
> it will work in an impartial manner to ensure safety of online 
> pharmaceutical sales.
>
> The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) announced in 
> June that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
> (ICANN) decided upon NABP becoming the registry operator of the new 
> “.pharmacy” domain.
>
> This “will soon provide a means for identifying safe online pharmacies 
> and resources,” according to NABP 
> <https://www.nabp.net/news/nabp-executes-registry-agreement-with-icann-for-pharmacy-domain--2>, 
> which adds that under the agreement with ICANN, the new generic 
> top-level domain (gTLD) “will be available only to legitimate online 
> pharmacies and related entities located in the United States or other 
> countries.”
>
> The pharmacy gTLD is expected to be launched by NABP by autumn 2014.
>
> However, according to Gabriel Levitt, vice-president of the company 
> PharmacyChecker.com <https://www.pharmacychecker.com/>, the main 
> funders of the NABP application are Eli Lily, Merck and Pfizer, as 
> shown on NABP “coalition support 
> <https://www.nabp.net/programs/pharmacy/pharmacy-and-nabp/coalition-support>” 
> web page.
>
> The NABP application for the .pharmacy domain has been challenged in 
> the past at ICANN by several groups, such as Public Citizen 
> <https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12145>, 
> Knowledge Ecology International 
> <https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12168>, 
> and the Canadian International Pharmacy Association 
> <https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12174>.
>
> According to Levitt, NABP “is apparently going much further than just 
> creating rules for online pharmacies” as it “will also decide which 
> companies, advocacy groups and other entities – such as those 
> advocating policies to expand access to affordable medications – can 
> obtain the .pharmacy domain ending,” he said.
>
> “NABP will become a global ICANN registry, dominated by an American 
> pharmacy board association, funded by the big three drug companies,” 
> he alleged.
>
> In a response 
> <http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/applicants/23may13/gac-advice-response-1-1040-55064-en.pdf> 
> [pdf] to the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC), the NABP 
> sought to settle concerns, arguing that it is “an impartial 
> professional organization that supports the state boards of pharmacy 
> in creating uniform regulations to protect public health,” and that it 
> will work through an advisory committee with members of the pharmacy 
> community to develop standards of operation for all domain registrants.
>
> The vast majority of websites currently selling pharmaceuticals online 
> are doing so illegally, the response states.
>
> “NABP plans to operate .PHARMACY in line with [its] core mission of 
> promoting public health and patient safety,” and will operate it using 
> a “tightly controlled registration policy” restricting second-level 
> registrations to the domain to licensed pharmacies and “prescription 
> drug-related entities that are in good standing and in compliance with 
> all applicable laws in the jurisdictions in which they dispense, ship 
> or sell medications and that agree to conduct business according to 
> all standards of operation.”
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140721/3d2e8006/attachment.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 bzs at world.std.com  Mon Jul 21 13:16:58 2014
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:16:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Global trade in medicines - we have a new
 regulator
In-Reply-To: <02213072-858A-486F-8BC9-B5A0079CF47D@hserus.net>
References: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net>
	<02213072-858A-486F-8BC9-B5A0079CF47D@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <21453.19210.337235.423011@world.std.com>


From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>One undeniable fact, unfortunately, is that the number of scam artists enga=
>ged in selling ,education online, often without proper prescriptions, is fa=
>r higher than the number of legitimate online medicine stores.   You might =
>think back to the amount of spam you receive that advertises virility pills=
>, or even controlled drugs such as steroids and narcotics.

I believe we need to move beyond this old notion that the problem with
spam in particular is limited to the unscrupulous.

Certainly the unscrupulous are an easy target, who would defend
sinners?

But we have created this notion that if someone is of the acceptable
(business) class then other than some superficial and almost never
enforced notion that they must have a business relationship with you
they can send email etc without limit or (effectively) cost.

Meanwhile email has become almost as useless as a medium due to
so-called "legitimate" email as unscrupulous.

I have scripts which delete almost everything commercial unless I have
some very specific expectation of a useful message, such as an open
business order.

I have to, I get one to two thousand messages a day.

I'm sure I'm not unique in this regard.

The current conventions (they're mostly conventions) say, for example,
that if I have my car insured with BigCo insurance then every one of
their 100,000 worldwide agents has legitimate access to my mail box to
pitch life insurance, financial instruments, etc, anything really, if
they sold toothpaste they could pitch toothpaste.

The only practical limit seems to be that each company individually
tries to figure out how much would so annoying that I might ignore
them entirely.

Which is of limited comfort when there are thousands and thousands of
"legitimate" companies.

I may be a little ahead of the curve on this but I see this rising
tide of corporations discovering exactly what motivated the
"unscrupulous": They can send literally a billion messages per day for
almost no incremental cost.

It's a big, complex subject but I think we will soon be due for a sea
change in thinking regarding this entire topic.

Merely focusing on the "unscrupulous" will be insufficient as
end-users try to sort through thousands of completely uncoordinated
and seemingly unlimited emails from the "scrupulous".

What drives spammers is the free advertising.

But that might drive anyone. And, as we see, it does.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 21 13:47:16 2014
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:47:16 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Nepad_Call_for_applications_for_Online_Tra?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ining=3A_Internet_Governance_in_Africa_=E2=80=93_an_Introductio?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?n?=
Message-ID: <CALCecM8xJ0QiAiTHBX9eJOtZdXcz4abcX6iG0ndf+iqA3b_+CA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends and colleagues,

This important call for applications has just been released by Nepad, and
will be managed by our colleagues Towela Jere and Titi Akinsanmi. Please
let your friends in Africa know about this opportunity!

*Call for applications for Online Training: Internet Governance in Africa –
an Introduction*

The NEPAD e-Africa Programme invites applications for an online training
programme “Internet Governance in Africa – an Introduction”

*Course Content*

The course will cover fundamental aspects of Internet Governance and
Internet policy including:

   - Actors and processes
   - Infrastructure and broadband policy
   - Cybersecurity
   - Privacy and Human Rights
   - Network neutrality
   - Management of domain names and IP addresses
   - Socio-economic and development aspects of the Internet and Internet
   Governance



The course will also offer case studies and practical examples from Africa
and participants will be encouraged to contextualize their learning to
their countries or regions.

*Target Audience*

The training is open to a wide variety of stakeholders including:

   - Government officials
   - Officials from regional and sub-regional institutions
   - Parliamentary representatives
   - Civil society activists and advocates
   - Students, academics and researchers
   - Journalists



*Eligibility*

Applicants must meet the following requirements:

   - Citizen of a member state of the African Union
   - Able to read, write and converse in English
   - Have reliable Internet access

Applicants with an undergraduate degree may have an added advantage.
Preference will be given to individuals living and working in Africa.

*Mode of Delivery*

The course will be delivered in English and will be conducted online using
a mixture of facilitator-led sessions and self-directed learning.
Participants should expect to spend at least 8 hours per week on the
course. The course will be delivered over an 8-week period.

*Method of Application*

Apply online using the application form
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUAhmxVoh-l20DdZ_vqpRt3NAQGMIJGmzyyRIgyV9aA/viewform?usp=send_form>
.

(If you encounter problems with filling in the form online, you may request
a PDF version to be sent to you. Send your request to: towelan at nepad.org)

*Deadline for applications*

Applications should be received on or before July 28. Late applications may
be considered subject to availability of seats.

*Course Fees*

There are no fees associated with registration or participation in the
course.

*Enquiries*

Enquiries may be directed to Towela Nyirenda-Jere via email:
towelan at nepad.org


Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IG Programmes, DiploFoundation

*Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities,
Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical
Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy:
http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses <http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>**
<http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140721/0c9cd43b/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Mon Jul 21 20:03:43 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 05:33:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Global trade in medicines - we have a new
 regulator
In-Reply-To: <21453.19210.337235.423011@world.std.com>
References: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net> <02213072-858A-486F-8BC9-B5A0079CF47D@hserus.net> <21453.19210.337235.423011@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <A01FE7A5-60D0-4EA7-AEAF-CE230436EB72@hserus.net>

My focus here was not on spam except as an indicator of the number of bogus online pharmacies.

Ok WHO might be a viable registry for such a TLD, but I don't recall it coming out with an application to operate it, and the only governmental objection I recall was the EU.  
http://domainincite.com/11130-europe-rejects-icanns-authority-as-it-warns-of-problems-with-58-new-gtlds

--srs (iPad)

> On 21-Jul-2014, at 22:46, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>> One undeniable fact, unfortunately, is that the number of scam artists enga=
>> ged in selling ,education online, often without proper prescriptions, is fa=
>> r higher than the number of legitimate online medicine stores.   You might =
>> think back to the amount of spam you receive that advertises virility pills=
>> , or even controlled drugs such as steroids and narcotics.
> 
> I believe we need to move beyond this old notion that the problem with
> spam in particular is limited to the unscrupulous.
> 
> Certainly the unscrupulous are an easy target, who would defend
> sinners?
> 
> But we have created this notion that if someone is of the acceptable
> (business) class then other than some superficial and almost never
> enforced notion that they must have a business relationship with you
> they can send email etc without limit or (effectively) cost.
> 
> Meanwhile email has become almost as useless as a medium due to
> so-called "legitimate" email as unscrupulous.
> 
> I have scripts which delete almost everything commercial unless I have
> some very specific expectation of a useful message, such as an open
> business order.
> 
> I have to, I get one to two thousand messages a day.
> 
> I'm sure I'm not unique in this regard.
> 
> The current conventions (they're mostly conventions) say, for example,
> that if I have my car insured with BigCo insurance then every one of
> their 100,000 worldwide agents has legitimate access to my mail box to
> pitch life insurance, financial instruments, etc, anything really, if
> they sold toothpaste they could pitch toothpaste.
> 
> The only practical limit seems to be that each company individually
> tries to figure out how much would so annoying that I might ignore
> them entirely.
> 
> Which is of limited comfort when there are thousands and thousands of
> "legitimate" companies.
> 
> I may be a little ahead of the curve on this but I see this rising
> tide of corporations discovering exactly what motivated the
> "unscrupulous": They can send literally a billion messages per day for
> almost no incremental cost.
> 
> It's a big, complex subject but I think we will soon be due for a sea
> change in thinking regarding this entire topic.
> 
> Merely focusing on the "unscrupulous" will be insufficient as
> end-users try to sort through thousands of completely uncoordinated
> and seemingly unlimited emails from the "scrupulous".
> 
> What drives spammers is the free advertising.
> 
> But that might drive anyone. And, as we see, it does.
> 
> 
> -- 
>        -Barry Shein
> 
> The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140722/e58e9ae4/attachment.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Jul 22 09:02:31 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:02:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] Global trade in medicines - we have a new
 regulator
In-Reply-To: <A01FE7A5-60D0-4EA7-AEAF-CE230436EB72@hserus.net>
References: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net> <02213072-858A-486F-8BC9-B5A0079CF47D@hserus.net> <21453.19210.337235.423011@world.std.com> <A01FE7A5-60D0-4EA7-AEAF-CE230436EB72@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <A3069034-04AB-4D62-838E-89AE307DE1B4@glocom.ac.jp>

WHO staff were involved in the new gTLD process, and also in previous gTLD application rounds. WHO quite aware of the process.  They were concerned about .health and had considered applying, but (if I remember correctly) there wasn't time for agreement within WHO (admin processes) to make an application.  I don't remember them showing any interest at the time in .pharmacy or any likely drug/health etc string.

Adam



On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> My focus here was not on spam except as an indicator of the number of bogus online pharmacies.
> 
> Ok WHO might be a viable registry for such a TLD, but I don't recall it coming out with an application to operate it, and the only governmental objection I recall was the EU.  
> http://domainincite.com/11130-europe-rejects-icanns-authority-as-it-warns-of-problems-with-58-new-gtlds
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 21-Jul-2014, at 22:46, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>>> One undeniable fact, unfortunately, is that the number of scam artists enga=
>>> ged in selling ,education online, often without proper prescriptions, is fa=
>>> r higher than the number of legitimate online medicine stores.   You might =
>>> think back to the amount of spam you receive that advertises virility pills=
>>> , or even controlled drugs such as steroids and narcotics.
>> 
>> I believe we need to move beyond this old notion that the problem with
>> spam in particular is limited to the unscrupulous.
>> 
>> Certainly the unscrupulous are an easy target, who would defend
>> sinners?
>> 
>> But we have created this notion that if someone is of the acceptable
>> (business) class then other than some superficial and almost never
>> enforced notion that they must have a business relationship with you
>> they can send email etc without limit or (effectively) cost.
>> 
>> Meanwhile email has become almost as useless as a medium due to
>> so-called "legitimate" email as unscrupulous.
>> 
>> I have scripts which delete almost everything commercial unless I have
>> some very specific expectation of a useful message, such as an open
>> business order.
>> 
>> I have to, I get one to two thousand messages a day.
>> 
>> I'm sure I'm not unique in this regard.
>> 
>> The current conventions (they're mostly conventions) say, for example,
>> that if I have my car insured with BigCo insurance then every one of
>> their 100,000 worldwide agents has legitimate access to my mail box to
>> pitch life insurance, financial instruments, etc, anything really, if
>> they sold toothpaste they could pitch toothpaste.
>> 
>> The only practical limit seems to be that each company individually
>> tries to figure out how much would so annoying that I might ignore
>> them entirely.
>> 
>> Which is of limited comfort when there are thousands and thousands of
>> "legitimate" companies.
>> 
>> I may be a little ahead of the curve on this but I see this rising
>> tide of corporations discovering exactly what motivated the
>> "unscrupulous": They can send literally a billion messages per day for
>> almost no incremental cost.
>> 
>> It's a big, complex subject but I think we will soon be due for a sea
>> change in thinking regarding this entire topic.
>> 
>> Merely focusing on the "unscrupulous" will be insufficient as
>> end-users try to sort through thousands of completely uncoordinated
>> and seemingly unlimited emails from the "scrupulous".
>> 
>> What drives spammers is the free advertising.
>> 
>> But that might drive anyone. And, as we see, it does.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>>        -Barry Shein
>> 
>> The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
>> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 suresh at hserus.net  Tue Jul 22 09:23:17 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:53:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] Global trade in medicines - we have a new
 regulator
In-Reply-To: <A3069034-04AB-4D62-838E-89AE307DE1B4@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net> <02213072-858A-486F-8BC9-B5A0079CF47D@hserus.net> <21453.19210.337235.423011@world.std.com> <A01FE7A5-60D0-4EA7-AEAF-CE230436EB72@hserus.net> <A3069034-04AB-4D62-838E-89AE307DE1B4@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <9E30BD65-EAD7-4289-9A05-391C56ED2937@hserus.net>

Ah thanks Adam.  And no Parminder, this does not appear to be any sort of regulator or even an effective monopoly. Nothing stops pharmacies using .com, .biz, .co.in or whatever else.

--srs (iPad)

> On 22-Jul-2014, at 18:32, Adam <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> WHO staff were involved in the new gTLD process, and also in previous gTLD application rounds. WHO quite aware of the process.  They were concerned about .health and had considered applying, but (if I remember correctly) there wasn't time for agreement within WHO (admin processes) to make an application.  I don't remember them showing any interest at the time in .pharmacy or any likely drug/health etc string.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> 
>> My focus here was not on spam except as an indicator of the number of bogus online pharmacies.
>> 
>> Ok WHO might be a viable registry for such a TLD, but I don't recall it coming out with an application to operate it, and the only governmental objection I recall was the EU.  
>> http://domainincite.com/11130-europe-rejects-icanns-authority-as-it-warns-of-problems-with-58-new-gtlds
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>>> On 21-Jul-2014, at 22:46, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>>>> One undeniable fact, unfortunately, is that the number of scam artists enga=
>>>> ged in selling ,education online, often without proper prescriptions, is fa=
>>>> r higher than the number of legitimate online medicine stores.   You might =
>>>> think back to the amount of spam you receive that advertises virility pills=
>>>> , or even controlled drugs such as steroids and narcotics.
>>> 
>>> I believe we need to move beyond this old notion that the problem with
>>> spam in particular is limited to the unscrupulous.
>>> 
>>> Certainly the unscrupulous are an easy target, who would defend
>>> sinners?
>>> 
>>> But we have created this notion that if someone is of the acceptable
>>> (business) class then other than some superficial and almost never
>>> enforced notion that they must have a business relationship with you
>>> they can send email etc without limit or (effectively) cost.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile email has become almost as useless as a medium due to
>>> so-called "legitimate" email as unscrupulous.
>>> 
>>> I have scripts which delete almost everything commercial unless I have
>>> some very specific expectation of a useful message, such as an open
>>> business order.
>>> 
>>> I have to, I get one to two thousand messages a day.
>>> 
>>> I'm sure I'm not unique in this regard.
>>> 
>>> The current conventions (they're mostly conventions) say, for example,
>>> that if I have my car insured with BigCo insurance then every one of
>>> their 100,000 worldwide agents has legitimate access to my mail box to
>>> pitch life insurance, financial instruments, etc, anything really, if
>>> they sold toothpaste they could pitch toothpaste.
>>> 
>>> The only practical limit seems to be that each company individually
>>> tries to figure out how much would so annoying that I might ignore
>>> them entirely.
>>> 
>>> Which is of limited comfort when there are thousands and thousands of
>>> "legitimate" companies.
>>> 
>>> I may be a little ahead of the curve on this but I see this rising
>>> tide of corporations discovering exactly what motivated the
>>> "unscrupulous": They can send literally a billion messages per day for
>>> almost no incremental cost.
>>> 
>>> It's a big, complex subject but I think we will soon be due for a sea
>>> change in thinking regarding this entire topic.
>>> 
>>> Merely focusing on the "unscrupulous" will be insufficient as
>>> end-users try to sort through thousands of completely uncoordinated
>>> and seemingly unlimited emails from the "scrupulous".
>>> 
>>> What drives spammers is the free advertising.
>>> 
>>> But that might drive anyone. And, as we see, it does.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>       -Barry Shein
>>> 
>>> The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
>>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
>>> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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 gideonrop at gmail.com  Wed Jul 23 02:42:16 2014
From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:42:16 +0300
Subject: [governance] Comments on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
Message-ID: <CAP2ohHGxYw0Md4g9uErqyvEoGHfRKda0J=Ar1=MRitD7yER01w@mail.gmail.com>

Here is an interesting input regarding the improvement of ICANN's
accountability mechanisms by Robin Gross.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/pdfAXyqLQLLln.pdf

Regards
Gideon Rop
DotConnectAfrica
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140723/3a7d42ed/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jul 23 03:47:44 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:17:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Comments on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
In-Reply-To: <CAP2ohHGxYw0Md4g9uErqyvEoGHfRKda0J=Ar1=MRitD7yER01w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP2ohHGxYw0Md4g9uErqyvEoGHfRKda0J=Ar1=MRitD7yER01w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53CF68A0.9020701@itforchange.net>


The report very well describes the problems with ICANN's accountability 
with respect to human rights, which is basically ICANN's political 
accountability. However, I dont see any clear recommendations in this 
docuemnt about how to ensure such accountability. As rightly pointed 
out, it cannot be done though processes like taking in public comments 
or through experts based mechanisms. How then?

This is the key question in the current IANA transition/ ICANN 
accountability process, these two aspects of a single issue having been 
artificially, and one must say, cleverly, separated. IANA authority was 
used by the US gov as *the* lever to ensure political accountability of 
ICANN to itself. Suddenly, IANA task has begun to be described by the US 
gov as merely a clerical one. And ICANN accountability being entirely 
unrelated to it. Funny. But again there seems not much desire around to 
call the bluff...

parminder





On Wednesday 23 July 2014 12:12 PM, Gideon wrote:
> Here is an interesting input regarding the improvement of ICANN's 
> accountability mechanisms by Robin Gross.
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/pdfAXyqLQLLln.pdf
>
> Regards
> Gideon Rop
> DotConnectAfrica

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140723/10e60837/attachment.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 suresh at hserus.net  Wed Jul 23 20:58:12 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:28:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Who manages the Internet's address book?
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>

Vint Cerf video on the ICANN transition.

--srs (iPad)

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Dave Farber via ip" <ip at listbox.com>
> Date: 24 July 2014 2:41:35 IST
> To: "ip" <ip at listbox.com>
> Subject: [IP] Who manages the Internet's address book?
> Reply-To: dave at farber.net
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Charley Kline <csk at mail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014
> Subject: FW: Who manages the Internet's address book?
> To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
> 
> 
> For those who didn’t get this directly from Google, Vint Cerf summarizes the transition of ICANN.
> 
>  
> 
> From: Vint Cerf [mailto:no-reply at takeaction.withgoogle.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:02 PM
> To: Charley Kline
> Subject: Who manages the Internet's address book?
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Charley,
> 
> People call me a father of the Internet, since I helped create it 40 years ago. I know lots of people over-share about their kids, but I hope you don't mind one more.
> 
> Watch this video I made about the Internet and how it's governed. I think you'll find it worth a few moments.
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> There's been some confusion lately about changes to Internet governance and how it affects us all. I figure it's my responsibility to set the record straight. After all, no one wants people mixing up the facts about their kid.
> 
> Check it out. And if you enjoy my video, why not use the Internet to share it with friends near and far?
> 
> https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/us/vint-video
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vint Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
> 
> 
> P.S. Shameless plug: I was on "The Colbert Report" last week — and it was pretty awesome. Click here to watch, if you haven't already.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> © 2014 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/a9ddcd7a/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jul 23 23:38:54 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:08:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA
 transition process
In-Reply-To: <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>

Posting below a relevant exchange on the ISOC list. In the video linked 
to below, Vint mentiones how the US has now decided to hand over its 
IANA authority to ICANN!

On Thursday 24 July 2014 04:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3dH90tdhk#t=101
>
> "and hand over that responsibilty to ICANN"
>
>
> Is that really a foregone conclusion?

Yes, it is a forgone conclusion. Although it will be arrived at through 
a convoluted path to give the pretence that it is the global public that 
wants it this way. A 'global public' conveniently re-christened as 
'global multistakeholder community' to give some credence to the 
mentioned captive 'convoluted path' to arrive at this forgone 
conclusion. 'Public' you know is a dangerous word. You cant be sure who 
all can turn up in the name of 'public' and begin making what kinds of 
demands! 'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable 
political space/ concept.

Sorry for the cynical sounding statement, but each element of the IANA 
transition (non) puzzle points to this elementary fact. If asked, I can 
elaborate. I am not doing so right away because I think it is just too 
obvious..

parminder



On Thursday 24 July 2014 06:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Vint Cerf video on the ICANN transition.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From:* "Dave Farber via ip" <ip at listbox.com <mailto:ip at listbox.com>>
>> *Date:* 24 July 2014 2:41:35 IST
>> *To:* "ip" <ip at listbox.com <mailto:ip at listbox.com>>
>> *Subject:* *[IP] Who manages the Internet's address book?*
>> *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net <mailto:dave at farber.net>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Charley Kline* <csk at mail.com <mailto:csk at mail.com>>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014
>> Subject: FW: Who manages the Internet's address book?
>> To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net <mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>>
>>
>> For those who didn’t get this directly from Google, Vint Cerf 
>> summarizes the transition of ICANN.
>>
>> *From:*Vint Cerf [mailto:no-reply at takeaction.withgoogle.com 
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','no-reply at takeaction.withgoogle.com');>]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:02 PM
>> *To:* Charley Kline
>> *Subject:* Who manages the Internet's address book?
>>
>> *https://google.bsd.net/page/-/email/email-logo.png* 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108ef/1596138038/VEsH/>
>>
>> https://google.bsd.net/page/-/email/email-hdr-border.png
>>
>> Hi Charley,
>>
>> People call me a father of the Internet, since I helped create it 40 
>> years ago. I know lots of people over-share about their kids, but I 
>> hope you don't mind one more.
>>
>> *Watch this video I made about the Internet and how it's governed. I 
>> think you'll find it worth a few moments.* 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108d7/1596138038/VEsE/>
>>
>> Watch this video of Vint Cerf explaining who manages the Internet's 
>> address book. 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108d8/1596138038/VEsF/>
>>
>> There's been some confusion lately about changes to Internet 
>> governance and how it affects us all. I figure it's my responsibility 
>> to set the record straight. After all, no one wants people mixing up 
>> the facts about their kid.
>>
>> **Check it out. And if you enjoy my video, why not use the Internet 
>> to share it with friends near and far?**
>>
>> *https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/us/vint-video* 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108c1/1596138038/VEsC/>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Vint Cerf
>> Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
>>
>>
>> P.S. Shameless plug: I was on "The Colbert Report" last week — and it 
>> was pretty awesome. *Click here to watch, if you haven't already.* 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108ca/1596138038/VEsD/>
>>
>>
>> http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/email-ftr-border.png
>>
>> © 2014 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 
>> 94043, USA
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/06f1686e/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jul 23 23:59:28 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:29:28 +0530
Subject: Fwd: [governance] Vint Cerf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>

(With Vint Cerf's name spell corrected. Apologies.)

Posting below a relevant exchange on the ISOC list. In the video linked 
to below, Vint mentiones how the US has now decided to hand over its 
IANA authority to ICANN!

On Thursday 24 July 2014 04:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3dH90tdhk#t=101
>
> "and hand over that responsibilty to ICANN"
>
>
> Is that really a foregone conclusion?

Yes, it is a forgone conclusion. Although it will be arrived at through 
a convoluted path to give the pretence that it is the global public that 
wants it this way. A 'global public' conveniently re-christened as 
'global multistakeholder community' to give some credence to the 
mentioned captive 'convoluted path' to arrive at this forgone 
conclusion. 'Public' you know is a dangerous word. You cant be sure who 
all can turn up in the name of 'public' and begin making what kinds of 
demands! 'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable 
political space/ concept.

Sorry for the cynical sounding statement, but each element of the IANA 
transition (non) puzzle points to this elementary fact. If asked, I can 
elaborate. I am not doing so right away because I think it is just too 
obvious..

parminder



On Thursday 24 July 2014 06:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Vint Cerf video on the ICANN transition.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From:* "Dave Farber via ip" <ip at listbox.com <mailto:ip at listbox.com>>
>> *Date:* 24 July 2014 2:41:35 IST
>> *To:* "ip" <ip at listbox.com <mailto:ip at listbox.com>>
>> *Subject:* *[IP] Who manages the Internet's address book?*
>> *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net <mailto:dave at farber.net>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Charley Kline* <csk at mail.com <mailto:csk at mail.com>>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014
>> Subject: FW: Who manages the Internet's address book?
>> To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net <mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>>
>>
>> For those who didn’t get this directly from Google, Vint Cerf 
>> summarizes the transition of ICANN.
>>
>> *From:*Vint Cerf [mailto:no-reply at takeaction.withgoogle.com 
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','no-reply at takeaction.withgoogle.com');>]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:02 PM
>> *To:* Charley Kline
>> *Subject:* Who manages the Internet's address book?
>>
>> *https://google.bsd.net/page/-/email/email-logo.png* 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108ef/1596138038/VEsH/>
>>
>> https://google.bsd.net/page/-/email/email-hdr-border.png
>>
>> Hi Charley,
>>
>> People call me a father of the Internet, since I helped create it 40 
>> years ago. I know lots of people over-share about their kids, but I 
>> hope you don't mind one more.
>>
>> *Watch this video I made about the Internet and how it's governed. I 
>> think you'll find it worth a few moments.* 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108d7/1596138038/VEsE/>
>>
>> Watch this video of Vint Cerf explaining who manages the Internet's 
>> address book. 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108d8/1596138038/VEsF/>
>>
>> There's been some confusion lately about changes to Internet 
>> governance and how it affects us all. I figure it's my responsibility 
>> to set the record straight. After all, no one wants people mixing up 
>> the facts about their kid.
>>
>> **Check it out. And if you enjoy my video, why not use the Internet 
>> to share it with friends near and far?**
>>
>> *https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/us/vint-video* 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108c1/1596138038/VEsC/>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Vint Cerf
>> Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
>>
>>
>> P.S. Shameless plug: I was on "The Colbert Report" last week — and it 
>> was pretty awesome. *Click here to watch, if you haven't already.* 
>> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108ca/1596138038/VEsD/>
>>
>>
>> http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/email-ftr-border.png
>>
>> © 2014 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 
>> 94043, USA
>>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/7b342b43/attachment.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

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 24 05:03:54 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:03:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] Root Server
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00

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  Thu Jul 24 05:57:37 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:57:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYp7irLcYH3_WR7_sjzZj4BEWddcfkQShNW8gnEw3PyTVg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Wasn't obvious from the very beginning? A déja vu masquerade.There is no
point wasting time on this so called "transition" that in substance is
plain status quo.

What matters is working on the post masquerianade. Let the USG
mickey-mousing with ICANN for their own use. The internet is working just
the same without it. After all it's their sovereign right, ICANN is a
californian company. Let's build a coalition with interested UN
institutions and NGO's. There is plenty of experience and expertise for
designing a framework based on democratic citizens empowerment, instead of
GAFAs.

Louis.
- - -

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:38 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>  Posting below a relevant exchange on the ISOC list. In the video linked
> to below, Vint mentiones how the US has now decided to hand over its IANA
> authority to ICANN!
>
> On Thursday 24 July 2014 04:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
>
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3dH90tdhk#t=101
>
>  "and hand over that responsibilty to ICANN"
>
>
>  Is that really a foregone conclusion?
>
>
> Yes, it is a forgone conclusion. Although it will be arrived at through a
> convoluted path to give the pretence that it is the global public that
> wants it this way. A 'global public' conveniently re-christened as 'global
> multistakeholder community' to give some credence to the mentioned captive
> 'convoluted path' to arrive at this forgone conclusion. 'Public' you know
> is a dangerous word. You cant be sure who all can turn up in the name of
> 'public' and begin making what kinds of demands! 'Multistakeholder
> community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept.
>
> Sorry for the cynical sounding statement, but each element of the IANA
> transition (non) puzzle points to this elementary fact. If asked, I can
> elaborate. I am not doing so right away because I think it is just too
> obvious..
>
> parminder
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/8c31e5f9/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 07:43:20 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:43:20 -0500
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>

so mathematically, we could have 20 rootops instead of 13 once all
rootops are v6 enabled.

I'm sure there are 7 more orgs who would be willing to pony up several
hundred thousand USD per year to take on the responsibility of running
a rootserver, including some governments.

The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
serve the root without censorship?"

So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?


On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:03 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> FYI
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00
>
> 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
>



-- 
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 drc at virtualized.org  Thu Jul 24 09:00:12 2014
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:00:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org>

McTim,

On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:43 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
> serve the root without censorship?"

Given DNSSEC, that isn't really an issue.

The more interesting questions are "who picks?", "how do they pick?", "under what terms and conditions will service be provided?", and "how are those terms and conditions enforced?".

> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?

If they modified the root zone, it would not validate. In most resolvers, this would mean that root server address would get deprioritized in the list of root servers that get queried. It would essentially be as if they didn't run the root server.

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/3c7ac9a0/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Jul 24 09:08:00 2014
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:08:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <BD1E0AFA-14D6-4830-9D6B-D073BAAD8150@virtualized.org>

Hi,

On Jul 24, 2014, at 5:03 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00

Based on discussion that occurred day before yesterday during the IETF (DNSOP working group), that draft doesn't appear to have a lot of support, primarily due to potential operational difficulties due to the complexity inherent in the proposed routing architecture.

Another draft that may be of interest is:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-dist-root-01

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/f2018cbd/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mehrzad.azghandi at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 11:15:23 2014
From: mehrzad.azghandi at gmail.com (Mehrzad.azghandi)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:45:23 +0430
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>

@Parminder
> 'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept. '


That's absolutely truth. But the solution in my point of view is enforcing civil society for more and more involvement. 
MSim should be started from elementary schools.

Regards
Mehrzad 

 

+1 

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 24, 2014, at 8:08 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> 'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/7cd1b5fc/attachment.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 ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Jul 24 11:02:36 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:02:36 -0300
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53D1200C.2050804@cafonso.ca>

McT, where (or whom) do the "several hundred thousand USD per year" go
to? I cannot imagine the operation of a simple server cluster costing
this much by orders of magnitude.

--c.a.

On 07/24/2014 08:43 AM, McTim wrote:
> so mathematically, we could have 20 rootops instead of 13 once all
> rootops are v6 enabled.
> 
> I'm sure there are 7 more orgs who would be willing to pony up several
> hundred thousand USD per year to take on the responsibility of running
> a rootserver, including some governments.
> 
> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
> serve the root without censorship?"
> 
> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:03 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>> FYI
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00
>>
>> 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 drc at virtualized.org  Thu Jul 24 09:00:12 2014
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:00:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org>

McTim,

On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:43 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
> serve the root without censorship?"

Given DNSSEC, that isn't really an issue.

The more interesting questions are "who picks?", "how do they pick?", "under what terms and conditions will service be provided?", and "how are those terms and conditions enforced?".

> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?

If they modified the root zone, it would not validate. In most resolvers, this would mean that root server address would get deprioritized in the list of root servers that get queried. It would essentially be as if they didn't run the root server.

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/3c7ac9a0/attachment-0001.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 24 12:20:59 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:20:59 -0300
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxhvLMzY53HMj42og_c0LX_HxA7=rCXsqepMFN8-GNXZOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <53D1200C.2050804@cafonso.ca> <CACAaNxhvLMzY53HMj42og_c0LX_HxA7=rCXsqepMFN8-GNXZOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53D1326B.4090802@cafonso.ca>

This is weird -- anycast servers are the responsibility of each anycast
operator. The rest is the initial investment for a basic cluster.
Operation is pretty straigthforward. I cannot arrive at "hundreds of
thousands" of dollars for a mirroring service.

--c.a.

On 07/24/2014 12:13 PM, McTim wrote:
> machines, power cooling, staff, rent, etc, multiplied by the numbers
> of anycast servers you set up in various places.  Add staff time for
> various Internet coordination meetings, HR overhead, admin costs and
> it can add up pretty quick.
> 
> Verisign I'm sure, spends a lot more than University of Md, but
> running a global rootserver does have significant costs and
> responsibilities.
> 
> DRC is right when he spoke about censorship, but my post was more
> along the lines of "would they be willing to do it if it included
> names they didn't like".
> 
> Sorry to have been unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> McT, where (or whom) do the "several hundred thousand USD per year" go
>> to? I cannot imagine the operation of a simple server cluster costing
>> this much by orders of magnitude.
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 07/24/2014 08:43 AM, McTim wrote:
>>> so mathematically, we could have 20 rootops instead of 13 once all
>>> rootops are v6 enabled.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are 7 more orgs who would be willing to pony up several
>>> hundred thousand USD per year to take on the responsibility of running
>>> a rootserver, including some governments.
>>>
>>> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
>>> serve the root without censorship?"
>>>
>>> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
>>> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:03 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>>> FYI
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00
>>>>
>>>> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 11:13:40 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:13:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <53D1200C.2050804@cafonso.ca>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <53D1200C.2050804@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhvLMzY53HMj42og_c0LX_HxA7=rCXsqepMFN8-GNXZOg@mail.gmail.com>

machines, power cooling, staff, rent, etc, multiplied by the numbers
of anycast servers you set up in various places.  Add staff time for
various Internet coordination meetings, HR overhead, admin costs and
it can add up pretty quick.

Verisign I'm sure, spends a lot more than University of Md, but
running a global rootserver does have significant costs and
responsibilities.

DRC is right when he spoke about censorship, but my post was more
along the lines of "would they be willing to do it if it included
names they didn't like".

Sorry to have been unclear.



On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> McT, where (or whom) do the "several hundred thousand USD per year" go
> to? I cannot imagine the operation of a simple server cluster costing
> this much by orders of magnitude.
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 07/24/2014 08:43 AM, McTim wrote:
>> so mathematically, we could have 20 rootops instead of 13 once all
>> rootops are v6 enabled.
>>
>> I'm sure there are 7 more orgs who would be willing to pony up several
>> hundred thousand USD per year to take on the responsibility of running
>> a rootserver, including some governments.
>>
>> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
>> serve the root without censorship?"
>>
>> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
>> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:03 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>> FYI
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>



-- 
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 kichango at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 09:24:11 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:24:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9BiHrQSuT36PNVyq7gVoqX53fOawQm6R=aGe8UcGJmXQ@mail.gmail.com>

While I find your reading clearly substantiated by the content of the
material, I just wonder what those people who regularly lambaste the use of
the terms/qualifiers "democratic" and "international" in this context would
now say to Cerf about him referring to an "international multistakeholder
community" (2:12) and an "even more democratic framework" (2:22).

As for me, nations first are peoples -- and that is implied in the
terminology of the name "United Nations" as much as their decision-making
procedures were designed mainly to be States-based because of what was
conceivable at the historical moment the UN was constituted. But
"international" does not have to mean "intergovernmental" -- or at least
not that preeminently, much less exclusively. And why would anything "more
democratic" be rejected or fought against by civil society?? So on those
two specific points I'd oddly agree more with Google's Internet Evangelist
than with some CS members here ;)

 Mawaki


On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>  (With Vint Cerf's name spell corrected. Apologies.)
>
> Posting below a relevant exchange on the ISOC list. In the video linked to
> below, Vint mentiones how the US has now decided to hand over its IANA
> authority to ICANN!
>
> On Thursday 24 July 2014 04:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
>
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3dH90tdhk#t=101
>
>  "and hand over that responsibilty to ICANN"
>
>
>  Is that really a foregone conclusion?
>
>
> Yes, it is a forgone conclusion. Although it will be arrived at through a
> convoluted path to give the pretence that it is the global public that
> wants it this way. A 'global public' conveniently re-christened as 'global
> multistakeholder community' to give some credence to the mentioned captive
> 'convoluted path' to arrive at this forgone conclusion. 'Public' you know
> is a dangerous word. You cant be sure who all can turn up in the name of
> 'public' and begin making what kinds of demands! 'Multistakeholder
> community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept.
>
> Sorry for the cynical sounding statement, but each element of the IANA
> transition (non) puzzle points to this elementary fact. If asked, I can
> elaborate. I am not doing so right away because I think it is just too
> obvious..
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>  On Thursday 24 July 2014 06:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> Vint Cerf video on the ICANN transition.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *From:* "Dave Farber via ip" <ip at listbox.com>
> *Date:* 24 July 2014 2:41:35 IST
> *To:* "ip" <ip at listbox.com>
> *Subject:* *[IP] Who manages the Internet's address book?*
> *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Charley Kline* <csk at mail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014
> Subject: FW: Who manages the Internet's address book?
> To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
>
>
>  For those who didn't get this directly from Google, Vint Cerf summarizes
> the transition of ICANN.
>
>
>
> *From:* Vint Cerf [mailto:no-reply at takeaction.withgoogle.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:02 PM
> *To:* Charley Kline
> *Subject:* Who manages the Internet's address book?
>
>
>
> *[image: https://google.bsd.net/page/-/email/email-logo.png]*
> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108ef/1596138038/VEsH/>
>
> [image: https://google.bsd.net/page/-/email/email-hdr-border.png]
>
>
>
> Hi Charley,
>
> People call me a father of the Internet, since I helped create it 40 years
> ago. I know lots of people over-share about their kids, but I hope you
> don't mind one more.
>
> *Watch this video I made about the Internet and how it's governed. I think
> you'll find it worth a few moments.*
> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108d7/1596138038/VEsE/>
>
>
> [image: Watch this video of Vint Cerf explaining who manages the
> Internet's address book.]
> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108d8/1596138038/VEsF/>
>
>
>
> There's been some confusion lately about changes to Internet governance
> and how it affects us all. I figure it's my responsibility to set the
> record straight. After all, no one wants people mixing up the facts about
> their kid.
>
> *Check it out. And if you enjoy my video, why not use the Internet to
> share it with friends near and far?*
>
> *https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/us/vint-video*
> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108c1/1596138038/VEsC/>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vint Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
>
>
> P.S. Shameless plug: I was on "The Colbert Report" last week -- and it was
> pretty awesome. *Click here to watch, if you haven't already.*
> <https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/page/m/1439d9bc/19d4a4e/127e998/3ed108ca/1596138038/VEsD/>
>
>
>
>
> [image: http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/email-ftr-border.png]
>
> (c) 2014 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/dc5001a9/attachment.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 hasansf at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 11:54:58 2014
From: hasansf at gmail.com (Faisal Hasan)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:54:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYp7irLcYH3_WR7_sjzZj4BEWddcfkQShNW8gnEw3PyTVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYp7irLcYH3_WR7_sjzZj4BEWddcfkQShNW8gnEw3PyTVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM2x3i_N51+eXvOW6QaZMWoSkLNN7E15ZB1qc4hbyqNFmZwihQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1
Faisal Hasan
ISOC Bangladesh Dhaka


On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Wasn't obvious from the very beginning? A déja vu masquerade.There is no
> point wasting time on this so called "transition" that in substance is
> plain status quo.
>
> What matters is working on the post masquerianade. Let the USG
> mickey-mousing with ICANN for their own use. The internet is working just
> the same without it. After all it's their sovereign right, ICANN is a
> californian company. Let's build a coalition with interested UN
> institutions and NGO's. There is plenty of experience and expertise for
> designing a framework based on democratic citizens empowerment, instead of
> GAFAs.
>
> Louis.
> - - -
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:38 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>
>>  Posting below a relevant exchange on the ISOC list. In the video linked
>> to below, Vint mentiones how the US has now decided to hand over its IANA
>> authority to ICANN!
>>
>> On Thursday 24 July 2014 04:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>
>>
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3dH90tdhk#t=101
>>
>>  "and hand over that responsibilty to ICANN"
>>
>>
>>  Is that really a foregone conclusion?
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is a forgone conclusion. Although it will be arrived at through a
>> convoluted path to give the pretence that it is the global public that
>> wants it this way. A 'global public' conveniently re-christened as 'global
>> multistakeholder community' to give some credence to the mentioned captive
>> 'convoluted path' to arrive at this forgone conclusion. 'Public' you know
>> is a dangerous word. You cant be sure who all can turn up in the name of
>> 'public' and begin making what kinds of demands! 'Multistakeholder
>> community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept.
>>
>> Sorry for the cynical sounding statement, but each element of the IANA
>> transition (non) puzzle points to this elementary fact. If asked, I can
>> elaborate. I am not doing so right away because I think it is just too
>> obvious..
>>
>> parminder
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/5fdfbba5/attachment.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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Thu Jul 24 12:41:39 2014
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:41:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Root Server
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140724164139.GA19045@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 06:43:20AM -0500,
 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 72 lines which said:

> so mathematically, we could have 20 rootops instead of 13 once all
> rootops are v6 enabled.

May I suggest that you read the very interesting Internet-Draft?
Because you get it completely wrong (there is no limit on the number
of "root name servers" in this proposal, read it).

> I'm sure there are 7 more orgs who would be willing to pony up
> several hundred thousand USD per year

Again, you show you did not read the draft.


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 24 14:56:43 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:56:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: Root Server
In-Reply-To: <20140724164139.GA19045@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <20140724164139.GA19045@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjHM4OctEBWyefQD1Z8P0JyZhXkfyHqP=igBr7ycTAsUg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Stephane,



On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 06:43:20AM -0500,
>  McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 72 lines which said:
>
>> so mathematically, we could have 20 rootops instead of 13 once all
>> rootops are v6 enabled.
>
> May I suggest that you read the very interesting Internet-Draft?
> Because you get it completely wrong (there is no limit on the number
> of "root name servers" in this proposal, read it).


I did read it, perhaps my interpretation is wrong:

"Then we get the following formula,

                        12+5+31+15*(N-1)+16*N+28*N<1232

       Accordingly, N=20, which means that the root servers can only be
       increased by 7 more in the IPv6 transport environment (without EDNS0
       [8] and TCP supporting)."


What did I miss?

-- 
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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Thu Jul 24 15:10:42 2014
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:10:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Root Server
In-Reply-To: <BD1E0AFA-14D6-4830-9D6B-D073BAAD8150@virtualized.org>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <BD1E0AFA-14D6-4830-9D6B-D073BAAD8150@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <20140724191042.GB28681@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 09:08:00AM -0400,
 David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote 
 a message of 64 lines which said:

> Based on discussion that occurred day before yesterday during the
> IETF (DNSOP working group), that draft doesn't appear to have a lot
> of support, primarily due to potential operational difficulties due
> to the complexity inherent in the proposed routing architecture.

I would not summarize it this way. The main concern expressed during
the DNSOP meeting in Toronto was of debugging (people outside of your
organization do not see your "root name server" and so cannot help
debugging it). The draft does not propose a new "routing architecture"
besides the already mastered anycast routing.

> Another draft that may be of interest is:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-dist-root-01

Which is very different technically and, IMHO, less sound from an
architectural point of view (since it mixes resolvers and
authoritative servers).

This second draft is just the old idea of "slaving the root", under a
different name.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Thu Jul 24 15:07:03 2014
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:07:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Root Server
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjHM4OctEBWyefQD1Z8P0JyZhXkfyHqP=igBr7ycTAsUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140724164139.GA19045@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
 <CACAaNxjHM4OctEBWyefQD1Z8P0JyZhXkfyHqP=igBr7ycTAsUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140724190703.GA28681@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 01:56:43PM -0500,
 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 37 lines which said:

> What did I miss?

Everything... Continue to read, the actual proposal (which allows
hundreds or thousands root name server operators) is later, in section
3...

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From sanzhiet at gmail.com  Thu Jul 24 15:36:42 2014
From: sanzhiet at gmail.com (Thierry Sanzhie Bokally)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:36:42 +0000
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAM2x3i_N51+eXvOW6QaZMWoSkLNN7E15ZB1qc4hbyqNFmZwihQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYp7irLcYH3_WR7_sjzZj4BEWddcfkQShNW8gnEw3PyTVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAM2x3i_N51+eXvOW6QaZMWoSkLNN7E15ZB1qc4hbyqNFmZwihQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAG5qb4y+NyRx7WiOFr8mwFjTkAX2VSfiJR=EC5=N5LUMYEtaKw@mail.gmail.com>

+1

Thierry
Le 24 juil. 2014 17:08, "Faisal Hasan" <hasansf at gmail.com> a écrit :

> +1
> Faisal Hasan
> ISOC Bangladesh Dhaka
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Wasn't obvious from the very beginning? A déja vu masquerade.There is no
>> point wasting time on this so called "transition" that in substance is
>> plain status quo.
>>
>> What matters is working on the post masquerianade. Let the USG
>> mickey-mousing with ICANN for their own use. The internet is working just
>> the same without it. After all it's their sovereign right, ICANN is a
>> californian company. Let's build a coalition with interested UN
>> institutions and NGO's. There is plenty of experience and expertise for
>> designing a framework based on democratic citizens empowerment, instead of
>> GAFAs.
>>
>> Louis.
>> - - -
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:38 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Posting below a relevant exchange on the ISOC list. In the video
>>> linked to below, Vint mentiones how the US has now decided to hand over its
>>> IANA authority to ICANN!
>>>
>>> On Thursday 24 July 2014 04:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3dH90tdhk#t=101
>>>
>>>  "and hand over that responsibilty to ICANN"
>>>
>>>
>>>  Is that really a foregone conclusion?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is a forgone conclusion. Although it will be arrived at through
>>> a convoluted path to give the pretence that it is the global public that
>>> wants it this way. A 'global public' conveniently re-christened as 'global
>>> multistakeholder community' to give some credence to the mentioned captive
>>> 'convoluted path' to arrive at this forgone conclusion. 'Public' you know
>>> is a dangerous word. You cant be sure who all can turn up in the name of
>>> 'public' and begin making what kinds of demands! 'Multistakeholder
>>> community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the cynical sounding statement, but each element of the IANA
>>> transition (non) puzzle points to this elementary fact. If asked, I can
>>> elaborate. I am not doing so right away because I think it is just too
>>> obvious..
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140724/5f9d6c5e/attachment.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 pwilson at apnic.net  Thu Jul 24 19:58:23 2014
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:58:23 +1000
Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9BiHrQSuT36PNVyq7gVoqX53fOawQm6R=aGe8UcGJmXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <CACTo+v9BiHrQSuT36PNVyq7gVoqX53fOawQm6R=aGe8UcGJmXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EC4D6BD9-8A23-4782-9ADA-62A08A5D56D6@apnic.net>


On 24 Jul 2014, at 11:24 pm, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I find your reading clearly substantiated by the content of the material, I just wonder what those people who regularly lambaste the use of the terms/qualifiers "democratic" and "international" in this context would now say to Cerf about him referring to an "international multistakeholder community" (2:12) and an "even more democratic framework" (2:22). 

+1


Paul.



> 
> As for me, nations first are peoples -- and that is implied in the terminology of the name "United Nations" as much as their decision-making procedures were designed mainly to be States-based because of what was conceivable at the historical moment the UN was constituted. But "international" does not have to mean "intergovernmental" -- or at least not that preeminently, much less exclusively. And why would anything "more democratic" be rejected or fought against by civil society?? So on those two specific points I'd oddly agree more with Google's Internet Evangelist than with some CS members here ;)  
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:59 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> (With Vint Cerf's name spell corrected. Apologies.)
> 
> Posting below a relevant exchange on the ISOC list. In the video linked to below, Vint mentiones how the US has now decided to hand over its IANA authority to ICANN! 
> 
> On Thursday 24 July 2014 04:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3dH90tdhk#t=101
>> 
>> "and hand over that responsibilty to ICANN"
>> 
>> 
>> Is that really a foregone conclusion?
> 
> Yes, it is a forgone conclusion. Although it will be arrived at through a convoluted path to give the pretence that it is the global public that wants it this way. A 'global public' conveniently re-christened as 'global multistakeholder community' to give some credence to the mentioned captive 'convoluted path' to arrive at this forgone conclusion. 'Public' you know is a dangerous word. You cant be sure who all can turn up in the name of 'public' and begin making what kinds of demands! 'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept. 
> 
> Sorry for the cynical sounding statement, but each element of the IANA transition (non) puzzle points to this elementary fact. If asked, I can elaborate. I am not doing so right away because I think it is just too obvious..
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday 24 July 2014 06:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Vint Cerf video on the ICANN transition.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: "Dave Farber via ip" <ip at listbox.com>
>>> Date: 24 July 2014 2:41:35 IST
>>> To: "ip" <ip at listbox.com>
>>> Subject: [IP] Who manages the Internet's address book?
>>> Reply-To: dave at farber.net
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Charley Kline <csk at mail.com>
>>> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014
>>> Subject: FW: Who manages the Internet's address book?
>>> To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For those who didn’t get this directly from Google, Vint Cerf summarizes the transition of ICANN.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> From: Vint Cerf [mailto:no-reply at takeaction.withgoogle.com] 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 2:02 PM
>>> To: Charley Kline
>>> Subject: Who manages the Internet's address book?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Hi Charley,
>>> 
>>> People call me a father of the Internet, since I helped create it 40 years ago. I know lots of people over-share about their kids, but I hope you don't mind one more.
>>> 
>>> Watch this video I made about the Internet and how it's governed. I think you'll find it worth a few moments.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> There's been some confusion lately about changes to Internet governance and how it affects us all. I figure it's my responsibility to set the record straight. After all, no one wants people mixing up the facts about their kid.
>>> 
>>> Check it out. And if you enjoy my video, why not use the Internet to share it with friends near and far?
>>> 
>>> https://takeaction.withgoogle.com/us/vint-video
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Vint Cerf
>>> Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
>>> 
>>> 
>>> P.S. Shameless plug: I was on "The Colbert Report" last week — and it was pretty awesome. Click here to watch, if you haven't already.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> © 2014 Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jul 25 03:15:11 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:45:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net>

David,

Your response below is extremely interesting.

Over the years we - you and I  - have had long discussions on this list 
about whether and what kind of control the US exercised on the root of 
the Internet. After a long argument from either side - certainly very 
informative to me - it will finally come to speculating on what would 
the non US (or even the US based but not US gov controlled) root 
servers  do if US were to make a root change not authorised by a proper 
global gov body, basically ICANN at present. You would always insist 
that in your opinion these other root server operators will simply not 
follow suit - and not follow the 'wrongful' root change. I would argue 
that I very much expect them to fall in line - for legal reasons (in 
case of US based servers) and geo-political reasons (in case of non US 
ones, all being in US allied countries) . But since this counterfactual 
scenario could not be proven either way, that would end our discussion.

What I see as interesting is your statement below now is that you *do 
not* see how other root server operators *may not* follow the changes in 
the authoritative root server (under US gov control). That is, you are 
saying they will *have to* follow the changes made in authoritative root 
file. But this is exactly the opposite of the argument that you always 
used to deadlock our conversations about the problem of US control over 
the authoritative root server. Will request you to share the reason for 
the change in your position, as I understood it? (I must mention here 
that our referred discussions took place after DNSSEC had been put into 
place, and I did quote the relevance of DNSSEC being used although I did 
say that I did not fully understand how it worked and used to seek your 
help to know more about it.)

parminder


On Thursday 24 July 2014 06:30 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> McTim,
>
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:43 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
>> serve the root without censorship?"
> Given DNSSEC, that isn't really an issue.
>
> The more interesting questions are "who picks?", "how do they pick?", "under what terms and conditions will service be provided?", and "how are those terms and conditions enforced?".
>
>> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
>> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?
> If they modified the root zone, it would not validate. In most resolvers, this would mean that root server address would get deprioritized in the list of root servers that get queried. It would essentially be as if they didn't run the root server.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/ca97250b/attachment.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 isolatedn at gmail.com  Fri Jul 25 07:51:45 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:21:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
	<53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0FcOUtGc+pOJcOCFG+spMAmSj39Vkn541Rz29DNSX8xBQ@mail.gmail.com>

McTim,

I think (it is just, "I think") India would not deviate from any commitment
that it makes on the alignment of the root server to IANA policies but
would instead address any of its concerns outside the root server
commitments.

Sivasubramanian M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>



On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:13 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> so mathematically, we could have 20 rootops instead of 13 once all
> rootops are v6 enabled.
>
> I'm sure there are 7 more orgs who would be willing to pony up several
> hundred thousand USD per year to take on the responsibility of running
> a rootserver, including some governments.
>
> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
> serve the root without censorship?"
>
> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:03 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> > FYI
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-dnsop-scalingroot-00
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/22e4ff8c/attachment.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 ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com  Fri Jul 25 09:42:17 2014
From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:42:17 +0500
Subject: [governance] 
Message-ID: <CAPVtau=NRfXTidrOktXZtj7=KfvYt7Mx1Ak=5qZ6CZiLGthUbg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,


A new report The Global Innovation Index 2014 from Cornell University,
INSEAD and WIPO titled ‘Human Factor in Innovation’ has been released.


http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/content.aspx?page=GII-Home


http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/GII-2014-v5.pdf


Narine

​​

-- 
Narine Khachatryan
Safer Internet Armenia www.safe.am
Media Education Center www.mediaeducation.am
​
Yerevan, Armenia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/55e25d18/attachment.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 drc at virtualized.org  Fri Jul 25 10:11:57 2014
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:11:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Root Server
In-Reply-To: <20140724191042.GB28681@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <BD1E0AFA-14D6-4830-9D6B-D073BAAD8150@virtualized.org> <20140724191042.GB28681@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <484B7693-93C4-4CAA-A355-85AE46E772BC@virtualized.org>

Stephane,

On Jul 24, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> The main concern expressed during
> the DNSOP meeting in Toronto was of debugging (people outside of your
> organization do not see your "root name server" and so cannot help
> debugging it).

Hmm. I thought the complaint was people outside of your organization would see "your" root name server and if that name server was having issues, they'd have no way of identifying who "you" were to call to get it fixed.

> The draft does not propose a new "routing architecture"
> besides the already mastered anycast routing.

My impression of the discussion was that the anycast announcement of the same (new) prefix would not be coming from a single origin AS. This is a different model than the one that has been "mastered".

> Which is very different technically and, IMHO, less sound from an
> architectural point of view (since it mixes resolvers and
> authoritative servers).

I thought the discussion has coalesced into the model in which the AA bit is not set.  It is better to think of it as cache preloading/refreshing.  I'm told it is also what a number of large scale resolver operators already do.

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/39daeff3/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 25 10:10:54 2014
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:10:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org>

Parminder,

There is no change in my position.

Presumably, you can see the difference between these two cases:

1) the root server operator community refusing to accept an out-of-policy change coming from a compromised root zone generation process; and
2) a single root server operator unilaterally choosing to modify the contents of a valid zone.

In case #1, the root server operators can maintain the zone contents that existed prior to the out-of-policy change and the Internet's DNS will continue to work at least until the DNSSEC signature expires. This period of time would be sufficient for a separate signing and distribution infrastructure to be established and for the world's resolver operators to either abandon DNSSEC or for an emergency key roll to be performed.

In case #2, I believe it is quite unlikely a separate signing and distribution infrastructure would be established and even more unlikely all the world's resolver operators would be willing to do the emergency key roll to the new key, particularly since it would mean there would be a single root server. As a result, the single root server's responses would not validate.

In case #1, there would be tremendous disruption to the stability of the Internet's DNS. I believe the risk/cost of that disruption is (far) more than sufficient to deter any attempt to impose out-of-policy changes, particularly as it would be a "one way function": it would be impossible to reestablish any trust in previous system and all US government policy objectives related to the Internet would instantly be made moot. Since any attempt to modify the root out of policy would likely result in lawsuits, temporary restraining orders, etc., I believe there would be a vast amount of advance notice in which a separate signing/distribution infrastructure could be built should the US government go completely insane. 

In case #2, the individual root server operator would simply be made largely irrelevant ("largely" because some resolvers would continue to probe the broken root server to see if it had been fixed, but none of the answers would validate so validating resolvers would simply drop those answers on the floor).  I doubt the operator of that root server would see this as being in any way advantageous.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
-drc

On Jul 25, 2014, at 3:15 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Over the years we - you and I  - have had long discussions on this list about whether and what kind of control the US exercised on the root of the Internet. After a long argument from either side - certainly very informative to me - it will finally come to speculating on what would the non US (or even the US based but not US gov controlled) root servers  do if US were to make a root change not authorised by a proper global gov body, basically ICANN at present. You would always insist that in your opinion these other root server operators will simply not follow suit - and not follow the 'wrongful' root change. I would argue that I very much expect them to fall in line - for legal reasons (in case of US based servers) and geo-political reasons (in case of non US ones, all being in US allied countries) . But since this counterfactual scenario could not be proven either way, that would end our discussion.
> 
> What I see as interesting is your statement below now is that you *do not* see how other root server operators *may not* follow the changes in the authoritative root server (under US gov control). That is, you are saying they will *have to* follow the changes made in authoritative root file. But this is exactly the opposite of the argument that you always used to deadlock our conversations about the problem of US control over the authoritative root server. Will request you to share the reason for the change in your position, as I understood it? (I must mention here that our referred discussions took place after DNSSEC had been put into place, and I did quote the relevance of DNSSEC being used although I did say that I did not fully understand how it worked and used to seek your help to know more about it.)
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> On Thursday 24 July 2014 06:30 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> McTim,
>> 
>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:43 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
>>> serve the root without censorship?"
>> Given DNSSEC, that isn't really an issue.
>> 
>> The more interesting questions are "who picks?", "how do they pick?", "under what terms and conditions will service be provided?", and "how are those terms and conditions enforced?".
>> 
>>> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
>>> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?
>> If they modified the root zone, it would not validate. In most resolvers, this would mean that root server address would get deprioritized in the list of root servers that get queried. It would essentially be as if they didn't run the root server.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/30cc95c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/30cc95c7/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From vanda at uol.com.br  Fri Jul 25 11:12:24 2014
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:12:24 -0300
Subject: [governance] 
In-Reply-To: <CAPVtau=NRfXTidrOktXZtj7=KfvYt7Mx1Ak=5qZ6CZiLGthUbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPVtau=NRfXTidrOktXZtj7=KfvYt7Mx1Ak=5qZ6CZiLGthUbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CFF7F82F.47046%vanda@uol.com.br>

Thank you Narine! 
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464




From:  Narine Khachatryan <ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com>
Reply-To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
Narine Khachatryan <ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com>
Date:  Friday, July 25, 2014 at 10:42
To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject:  [governance]

Dear all, 


A new report The Global Innovation Index 2014 from Cornell University,
INSEAD and WIPO titled ‘Human Factor in Innovation’ has been released.


http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/content.aspx?page=GII-Home


http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/GII-2014-v5.pd
f


Narine

​​

-- 
Narine Khachatryan
Safer Internet Armenia www.safe.am <http://www.safe.am>
Media Education Center www.mediaeducation.am <http://www.mediaeducation.am>
​
Yerevan, Armenia

____________________________________________________________ You received
this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To
be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For
all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/e4b0235e/attachment.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 cafec3m at yahoo.fr  Fri Jul 25 11:34:39 2014
From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:34:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] 
In-Reply-To: <CFF7F82F.47046%vanda@uol.com.br>
References: <CAPVtau=NRfXTidrOktXZtj7=KfvYt7Mx1Ak=5qZ6CZiLGthUbg@mail.gmail.com> <CFF7F82F.47046%vanda@uol.com.br>
Message-ID: <1406302479.30080.YahooMailNeo@web28702.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

Hello Narine,

thanks for sharing this document

 
 
COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC
COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC
courriel:cafec3m at yahoo.fr/repronticrdc3m at yahoo.fr 
téléphone: +243 998983491/+243813684512 


Le Vendredi 25 juillet 2014 17h19, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br> a écrit :
 


Thank you Narine! 
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 




From:  Narine Khachatryan <ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com>
Reply-To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Narine Khachatryan <ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com>
Date:  Friday, July 25, 2014 at 10:42
To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject:  [governance] 


Dear all, 

A new report The Global Innovation Index 2014 from Cornell
University, INSEAD and WIPO titled ‘Human
Factor in Innovation’ has been released.  

http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/content.aspx?page=GII-Home

http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/GII-2014-v5.pdf

Narine

​​
-- 

Narine Khachatryan
Safer Internet Armenia www.safe.am

Media Education Center www.mediaeducation.am
​Yerevan, Armenia



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/fc272cea/attachment.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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Fri Jul 25 12:44:02 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:44:02 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYp7irLcYH3_WR7_sjzZj4BEWddcfkQShNW8gnEw3PyTVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYp7irLcYH3_WR7_sjzZj4BEWddcfkQShNW8gnEw3PyTVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <559283314.15654.1406306642386.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f03>

Bien dit, Louis ! 


+1 



 

Jean-Louis Fullsack

 

> Message du 24/07/14 11:58
> De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" 

> A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "parminder" 

> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
>
Hi,
> 
> Wasn't obvious from the very beginning? A déja vu masquerade.There is no point wasting time on this so called "transition" that in substance is plain status quo.
> 
> What matters is working on the post masquerianade. Let the USG mickey-mousing with ICANN for their own use. The internet is working just the same without it. After all it's their sovereign right, ICANN is a californian company. Let's build a coalition with interested UN institutions and NGO's. There is plenty of experience and expertise for designing a framework based on democratic citizens empowerment, instead of GAFAs.
> 
> Louis.
> - - -
>

>
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:38 AM, parminder 
wrote:
>

Posting below a relevant exchange on the ISOC list. In the video linked to below, Vint mentiones how the US has now decided to hand over its IANA authority to ICANN! 
> 
>
On Thursday 24 July 2014 04:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd3dH90tdhk#t=101

>
"and hand over that responsibilty to ICANN"


>

>
Is that really a foregone conclusion?



> Yes, it is a forgone conclusion. Although it will be arrived at through a convoluted path to give the pretence that it is the global public that wants it this way. A 'global public' conveniently re-christened as 'global multistakeholder community' to give some credence to the mentioned captive 'convoluted path' to arrive at this forgone conclusion. 'Public' you know is a dangerous word. You cant be sure who all can turn up in the name of 'public' and begin making what kinds of demands! 'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept. 
> 
> Sorry for the cynical sounding statement, but each element of the IANA transition (non) puzzle points to this elementary fact. If asked, I can elaborate. I am not doing so right away because I think it is just too obvious..
> 
> parminder 

 






____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/369005bf/attachment.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Jul 25 13:16:43 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:16:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>

So far this year I have "attended" several meetings, either physically or
virtually. In every case I have asked for a definition of
"multistakeholder", or, failing that, for whatever joint perception the
particular meeting had of the meaning, the attributes, of the term.
I have been disappointed every time.
However it seems to me that this leaves "us" free to establish a definition
by popular acclaim, to make "multistakeholder" mean what we want it to
mean, and, as Mehrzad suggests, teach that meaning to the children from
when they are small.
There is a lot of emphasis on "inclusion", but I think we must also
emphasise "responsibility" and "respect".
Deirdre


On 24 July 2014 11:15, Mehrzad.azghandi <mehrzad.azghandi at gmail.com> wrote:

> @Parminder
>
> 'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable political space/
> concept. '
>
>
> That's absolutely truth. But the solution in my point of view is enforcing
> civil society for more and more involvement.
> MSim should be started from elementary schools.
>
> Regards
> Mehrzad
>
>
>
> +1
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 8:08 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> 'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable political space/
> concept.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/e9b6f214/attachment.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 jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Jul 26 05:43:37 2014
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:43:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] Vint Cerf tells us the conclusion of the  complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYp7irLcYH3_WR7_sjzZj4BEWddcfkQShNW8gnEw3PyTVg@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYp7irLcYH3_WR7_sjzZj4BEWddcfkQShNW8gnEw3PyTVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1XAyQK-0004ao-9U@igcaucus.org>

At 11:57 24/07/2014, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>What matters is working on the post masquerianade. Let the USG 
>mickey-mousing with ICANN for theirown use. The internet is working 
>just the same without it. After all it's their sovereign right, 
>ICANN is a Californian company. Let's build a coalition with 
>interested UN institutions and NGO's. There is plenty of experience 
>and expertise for designing a framework based on democratic 
>citizens' empowerment, instead of GAFAs.

Louis,

Such a coalition can either be UN-down or person-up. This means 
either democratic (Gov of the people by the people) or polycratic 
(multitude's ecosystem). The top of the "masquerIANAde" is the 
pretense that the people of the world are to be US protected from 
their own Govs, i.e. from themselves. This is possible because 
democracy calls for voting first, which takes time, involves 
politicials and needs institutions. Polycracy proceeds by emergence 
from possibly converging individual/local actions: it does not 
require delays, but a manifesto would help in order to prevent the 
mathematical risk of chaotic self-organized criticalities (SOC)..

I, therefore, suggest for us to consider a Network Architecture 
Convergence Manifesto allowing a Libre "cooperinnovation". It should 
be based on a "masters and masters" self-determination based model, 
acknowledging that a network calls for an intelligent hardware, 
software, and brainware esthetic of which the infrastructure, 
control, and use coherence will oblige a technical ethic of its 
intergovernance and a self-organized return to equilibrium during 
criticalities.

It could acknowledge some of the basic architectural principles we 
discovered over the years, such as:

- plug to plug local networks owned by the people,
- end to end global physical network of networks,
- fringe to fringe glocal virtual networks of the network of networks.
- localization of its service, process, content, etc. capabilities at 
self-chosen addresses and names (DNS, CCN, ONS, etc.)
- passive end to end transportation of its atomic datagrams organized 
by software designed networking.
- active fringe to fringe presentation (OSI layer 6) of its 
intelligram corteges.
- principles of robustness (RFC 1122), perpetual change (RFC 1958), 
simplicity (RFC 3439) and subsidiarity (exemplified by RFC 5895).
- man/machine societal digitality being centered in the human person.
- ethitechnic necessity of technical design, duties, and rights being 
in continuity with the human ethic making its violations less 
rewarding than their cost.
- eventual purpose as semantic intercomprehension (meaning a host of 
additional areas and principles).

Note: as you know my personal project is to develop an applied R&D 
project for/from my village along those lines. The Montpellier 
meeting earlier this month will lead to a concerted French Libre 
applied project. Basically, our Tymnet (Bob and I) proposal of May 
1978 blocked by the closing of Cyclades and the status-quo strategy 
opposed to the IEN 48 second motivation. for 30 years now. Simplicity 
takes time ...

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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sat Jul 26 10:28:48 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:28:48 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
 <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2096229649.8866.1406384928810.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f13>

Dear all

I suuport dirdre's pov on the perception of "multistaholder" by individuals and collectivities like the WSIS.

 

A particularly appreciate his claim for establishing our own definition of "multistakeholder" and his assertion :



 

Thaks for that, Deidre

 

Greetings

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack 




 

 

> Message du 25/07/14 19:20
> De : "Deirdre Williams" 
> A : "Internet Governance" , "Mehrzad.azghandi" 
> Copie à : "parminder" 
, "David Allen" 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
>
So far this year I have "attended" several meetings, either physically or virtually. In every case I have asked for a definition of "multistakeholder", or, failing that, for whatever joint perception the particular meeting had of the meaning, the attributes, of the term.
I have been disappointed every time.
However it seems to me that this leaves "us" free to establish a definition by popular acclaim, to make "multistakeholder" mean what we want it to mean, and, as Mehrzad suggests, teach that meaning to the children from when they are small.
There is a lot of emphasis on "inclusion", but I think we must also emphasise "responsibility" and "respect".
Deirdre


> 
>
On 24 July 2014 11:15, Mehrzad.azghandi  wrote:
>


@Parminder

'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept. '


> 
That's absolutely truth. But the solution in my point of view is enforcing civil society for more and more involvement. 
MSim should be started from elementary schools.

> 
Regards
Mehrzad 

> 
 

> 
+1 
> 
> Sent from my iPad


> On Jul 24, 2014, at 8:08 AM, parminder 
wrote:
> 
>
'Multistakeholder community' is a much more controllable political space/ concept.



> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140726/584f5a76/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Sat Jul 26 10:48:26 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:48:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>



On 25-Jul-14 13:16, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> So far this year I have "attended" several meetings, either physically
> or virtually. In every case I have asked for a definition of
> "multistakeholder"


Whenever I need a definition, I use:


The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
the implementations.

It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.

avri
m17m.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 kichango at gmail.com  Sat Jul 26 11:13:57 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:13:57 +0000
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-QnOqfZ2+wHpUjHROU3T3JQc+kxg3vRwcwXn6QK64eXQ@mail.gmail.com>

Avri,

Are you the one authoring the writings at m17m.org? You know the complete
formula: "I owe this work to all these other people but all remaining flaws
are mine." So will that be you the suspect here?... Not to mention that I'd
rather cite a person than a domain name.
Thanks,

 Mawaki


On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 25-Jul-14 13:16, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> > So far this year I have "attended" several meetings, either physically
> > or virtually. In every case I have asked for a definition of
> > "multistakeholder"
>
>
> Whenever I need a definition, I use:
>
>
> The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
> for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
> participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
> recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
> may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
> always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
> the implementations.
>
> It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
> need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
>
> avri
> m17m.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140726/a47b0900/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Sat Jul 26 12:11:44 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:11:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-QnOqfZ2+wHpUjHROU3T3JQc+kxg3vRwcwXn6QK64eXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <CACTo+v-QnOqfZ2+wHpUjHROU3T3JQc+kxg3vRwcwXn6QK64eXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53D3D340.1060108@acm.org>

Hi,

Yeah, it is my website.

I thought I had my name on it somewhere.  But just added it to the about
page.  Been setting it up for a bit and guess i forgot to name myself as
the guilty party.

still a work in progress.

avri




On 26-Jul-14 11:13, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Avri,
> 
> Are you the one authoring the writings at m17m.org <http://m17m.org>?
> You know the complete formula: "I owe this work to all these other
> people but all remaining flaws are mine." So will that be you the
> suspect here?... Not to mention that I'd rather cite a person than a
> domain name.
> Thanks,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 25-Jul-14 13:16, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>     > So far this year I have "attended" several meetings, either physically
>     > or virtually. In every case I have asked for a definition of
>     > "multistakeholder"
> 
> 
>     Whenever I need a definition, I use:
> 
> 
>     The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
>     for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
>     participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
>     recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
>     may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
>     always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
>     the implementations.
> 
>     It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
>     need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
> 
>     avri
>     m17m.org <http://m17m.org>
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To 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 Jul 26 12:19:34 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:49:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net>


David

Thanks for your response.

Your whole argument below depends on making a clean distinction between 
scenario 1: all root servers acting as one - the root server community, 
and scenario 2;  one root server operator  takes a defiant stand. But 
neither does this clean distinction hold in reality, nor is it valid vis 
a vis our earlier discussion, which clearly brought up the scenario 
where some root server operators(US gov controlled ones, and next, US 
located ones)will - or will *have to* - act one way,  and the other root 
operators then having to look at their options -  to follow suit, or 
split the root.

In terms of the existing situation, which was the subject of our earlier 
discussions:

We know that it is only the US gov that can today make a 'problematic' 
change in the root. It should be obvious that when US gov does it, the 
root servers owned by the US gov will follow suit. Next, it is extremely 
unlikely that any such 'problematic change' will be made without some 
kind of legal backing, whether of the foreign assets regulation kind or 
one about alleged intellectual property violation. In either case, or 
other possible similar ones, all US based root serves (10 out of the 
total of 13) will have to comply and follow the changes made by the US 
gov in the authoritative file. That leaves the 3 non US root server 
operators... With the DNNSEC in operation (and I have always contended, 
even otherwise) they do not have much of an option.

Now, in terms of a possible extension of the number of root servers (to 
20 or more), which possibility triggered this discussion:

Considering that many if not most of these new root servers may go to 
developing countries, in the same way that there are strong developed 
country alliances, it is very likely that an operator in India will have 
agreement with another in Ghana and  a third one in Argentina to stick 
out against any effort by the US to unilaterally enforce its law and/ or 
standards on the world.

Therefore, in either case, a neat distinction - between all root file 
operators acting as one, on one hand, and just one trying to go its own 
way, on the other - does not obtains, and is not valid. And it is such 
an imagined neat distinction that is the sole basis of your argument.

parminder

On Friday 25 July 2014 07:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> There is no change in my position.
>
> Presumably, you can see the difference between these two cases:
>
> 1) the root server operator community refusing to accept an 
> out-of-policy change coming from a compromised root zone generation 
> process; and
> 2) a single root server operator unilaterally choosing to modify the 
> contents of a valid zone.
>
> In case #1, the root server operators can maintain the zone contents 
> that existed prior to the out-of-policy change and the Internet's DNS 
> will continue to work at least until the DNSSEC signature expires. 
> This period of time would be sufficient for a separate signing and 
> distribution infrastructure to be established and for the world's 
> resolver operators to either abandon DNSSEC or for an emergency key 
> roll to be performed.
>
> In case #2, I believe it is quite unlikely a separate signing and 
> distribution infrastructure would be established and even more 
> unlikely all the world's resolver operators would be willing to do the 
> emergency key roll to the new key, particularly since it would mean 
> there would be a single root server. As a result, the single root 
> server's responses would not validate.
>
> In case #1, there would be tremendous disruption to the stability of 
> the Internet's DNS. I believe the risk/cost of that disruption is 
> (far) more than sufficient to deter any attempt to impose 
> out-of-policy changes, particularly as it would be a "one way 
> function": it would be impossible to reestablish any trust in previous 
> system and all US government policy objectives related to the Internet 
> would instantly be made moot. Since any attempt to modify the root out 
> of policy would likely result in lawsuits, temporary restraining 
> orders, etc., I believe there would be a vast amount of advance notice 
> in which a separate signing/distribution infrastructure could be built 
> should the US government go completely insane.
>
> In case #2, the individual root server operator would simply be made 
> largely irrelevant ("largely" because some resolvers would continue to 
> probe the broken root server to see if it had been fixed, but none of 
> the answers would validate so validating resolvers would simply drop 
> those answers on the floor).  I doubt the operator of that root server 
> would see this as being in any way advantageous.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
> On Jul 25, 2014, at 3:15 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> Over the years we - you and I  - have had long discussions on this 
>> list about whether and what kind of control the US exercised on the 
>> root of the Internet. After a long argument from either side - 
>> certainly very informative to me - it will finally come to 
>> speculating on what would the non US (or even the US based but not US 
>> gov controlled) root servers  do if US were to make a root change not 
>> authorised by a proper global gov body, basically ICANN at present. 
>> You would always insist that in your opinion these other root server 
>> operators will simply not follow suit - and not follow the 'wrongful' 
>> root change. I would argue that I very much expect them to fall in 
>> line - for legal reasons (in case of US based servers) and 
>> geo-political reasons (in case of non US ones, all being in US allied 
>> countries) . But since this counterfactual scenario could not be 
>> proven either way, that would end our discussion.
>>
>> What I see as interesting is your statement below now is that you *do 
>> not* see how other root server operators *may not* follow the changes 
>> in the authoritative root server (under US gov control). That is, you 
>> are saying they will *have to* follow the changes made in 
>> authoritative root file. But this is exactly the opposite of the 
>> argument that you always used to deadlock our conversations about the 
>> problem of US control over the authoritative root server. Will 
>> request you to share the reason for the change in your position, as I 
>> understood it? (I must mention here that our referred discussions 
>> took place after DNSSEC had been put into place, and I did quote the 
>> relevance of DNSSEC being used although I did say that I did not 
>> fully understand how it worked and used to seek your help to know 
>> more about it.)
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 24 July 2014 06:30 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> McTim,
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:43 AM, McTim<dogwallah at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
>>>> serve the root without censorship?"
>>> Given DNSSEC, that isn't really an issue.
>>>
>>> The more interesting questions are "who picks?", "how do they pick?", "under what terms and conditions will service be provided?", and "how are those terms and conditions enforced?".
>>>
>>>> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
>>>> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?
>>> If they modified the root zone, it would not validate. In most resolvers, this would mean that root server address would get deprioritized in the list of root servers that get queried. It would essentially be as if they didn't run the root server.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -drc
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140726/0aaaf7e3/attachment.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 pouzin at well.com  Sat Jul 26 14:00:35 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:00:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net>
 <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYow2rgAreeH-OmEzqqbFrp_h5FVX6h2LKsjq-fhNppa4Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

The worldwide cell phone system, including China, uses more than 1500 roots
(aka HLR), one with each cell operator. Subscribers (7 billions) are more
than twice those of internet. And they are mobile. The basic function is
the same, converting a character string to an infrastructure ID.

Isn't the DNS the most gigantic *D*i*N*o*S*aur ever known ?
Are there political problems with HLRs ?
Nope. It just works. Any questions ?

Louis
- - -

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:19 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
> David
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Your whole argument below depends on making a clean distinction between
> scenario 1: all root servers acting as one - the root server community, and
> scenario 2;  one root server operator  takes a defiant stand. But neither
> does this clean distinction hold in reality, nor is it valid vis a vis our
> earlier discussion, which clearly brought up the scenario where some root
> server operators (US gov controlled ones, and next, US located ones) will
> - or will *have to* - act one way,  and the other root operators then
> having to look at their options -  to follow suit, or split the root.
>
> In terms of the existing situation, which was the subject of our earlier
> discussions:
>
> We know that it is only the US gov that can today make a 'problematic'
> change in the root. It should be obvious that when US gov does it, the root
> servers owned by the US gov will follow suit. Next, it is extremely
> unlikely that any such 'problematic change' will be made without some kind
> of legal backing, whether of the foreign assets regulation kind or one
> about alleged intellectual property violation. In either case, or other
> possible similar ones, all US based root serves (10 out of the total of 13)
> will have to comply and follow the changes made by the US gov in the
> authoritative file. That leaves the 3 non US root server operators... With
> the DNNSEC in operation (and I have always contended, even otherwise) they
> do not have much of an option.
>
> Now, in terms of a possible extension of the number of root servers (to 20
> or more), which possibility triggered this discussion:
>
> Considering that many if not most of these new root servers may go to
> developing countries, in the same way that there are strong developed
> country alliances, it is very likely that an operator in India will have
> agreement with another in Ghana and  a third one in Argentina to stick out
> against any effort by the US to unilaterally enforce its law and/ or
> standards on the world.
>
> Therefore, in either case, a neat distinction - between all root file
> operators acting as one, on one hand, and just one trying to go its own
> way, on the other - does not obtains, and is not valid. And it is such an
> imagined neat distinction that is the sole basis of your argument.
>
> parminder
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140726/ee0fd133/attachment.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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Sat Jul 26 17:30:21 2014
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:30:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYow2rgAreeH-OmEzqqbFrp_h5FVX6h2LKsjq-fhNppa4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net> <CA+EjHYow2rgAreeH-OmEzqqbFrp_h5FVX6h2LKsjq-fhNppa4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C519C3C6-3DBA-453F-8E00-81011F6C7050@gmail.com>

:-)))



Le 26 juil. 2014 à 20:00, Louis Pouzin (well) a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> The worldwide cell phone system, including China, uses more than 1500 roots (aka HLR), one with each cell operator. Subscribers (7 billions) are more than twice those of internet. And they are mobile. The basic function is the same, converting a character string to an infrastructure ID. 
> 
> Isn't the DNS the most gigantic DiNoSaur ever known ?
> Are there political problems with HLRs ? 
> Nope. It just works. Any questions ?
> 
> Louis
> - - -
> 
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:19 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> David 
> 
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> Your whole argument below depends on making a clean distinction between scenario 1: all root servers acting as one - the root server community, and scenario 2;  one root server operator  takes a defiant stand. But neither does this clean distinction hold in reality, nor is it valid vis a vis our earlier discussion, which clearly brought up the scenario where some root server operators (US gov controlled ones, and next, US located ones) will - or will *have to* - act one way,  and the other root operators then having to look at their options -  to follow suit, or split the root. 
> 
> In terms of the existing situation, which was the subject of our earlier discussions: 
> 
> We know that it is only the US gov that can today make a 'problematic' change in the root. It should be obvious that when US gov does it, the root servers owned by the US gov will follow suit. Next, it is extremely unlikely that any such 'problematic change' will be made without some kind of legal backing, whether of the foreign assets regulation kind or one about alleged intellectual property violation. In either case, or other possible similar ones, all US based root serves (10 out of the total of 13) will have to comply and follow the changes made by the US gov in the authoritative file. That leaves the 3 non US root server operators... With the DNNSEC in operation (and I have always contended, even otherwise) they do not have much of an option.
> 
> Now, in terms of a possible extension of the number of root servers (to 20 or more), which possibility triggered this discussion: 
> 
> Considering that many if not most of these new root servers may go to developing countries, in the same way that there are strong developed country alliances, it is very likely that an operator in India will have agreement with another in Ghana and  a third one in Argentina to stick out against any effort by the US to unilaterally enforce its law and/ or standards on the world.
> 
> Therefore, in either case, a neat distinction - between all root file operators acting as one, on one hand, and just one trying to go its own way, on the other - does not obtains, and is not valid. And it is such an imagined neat distinction that is the sole basis of your argument.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140726/b40ab392/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Sat Jul 26 18:16:00 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 00:16:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] Definition of "democratic multistakeholderism" (was
 Re: Vint Verf tells us the conclusion...)
In-Reply-To: <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20140727001600.0d9f994c@quill>

Avri's definition has just inspired me to write up the following
definition for “democratic multistakeholderism”:

  The practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow for all
  those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to participate in
  the deliberation of issues and the recommendation of solutions. These
  recommendations may be addressed to the decision-makers for formal
  democratic public policy decisions (such as legislative decisions by
  parliaments and democratically accountable executive decisions of
  governments) or they may provide guidance to those who are responsible
  for the implementation of democratic public policy decisions (which
  includes the private sector).

Available online for linking and commenting at
http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democratic-multistakeholderism/

Greetings,
Norbert



On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:48:26 -0400
Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> On 25-Jul-14 13:16, Deirdre Williams wrote:
> > So far this year I have "attended" several meetings, either
> > physically or virtually. In every case I have asked for a
> > definition of "multistakeholder"
> 
> 
> Whenever I need a definition, I use:
> 
> 
> The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
> for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
> participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
> recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
> may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers
> are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions
> and the implementations.
> 
> It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
> need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
> 
> avri
> m17m.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jul 26 23:54:15 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 09:24:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
 IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
Message-ID: <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 26 July 2014 08:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Snip
> Whenever I need a definition, I use:
>
>
> The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
> for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
> participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
> recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
> may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
> always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
> the implementations.


The definition above says that the 'equal footing' part is only for 
participation in deliberation of issues and giving (I understand, 
non-binding) recommendations of solutions. And that it does not apply to 
actual decision making and implementation. However, this is not how the 
term 'equal footing' is employed in the current MS discourse and the 
MSist text that is sought to pushed into global documents, including at 
NetMundial, CSTD WGs, and almost everywhere else. (I can provide any 
number of proofs to support this assertion.) There is obviously a world 
of difference between 'equal footing' for deliberations and rec giving, 
on one hand, and public policy decision making and implementation, on 
the other.

But lets not crib over the past. If this is the way Avri looks at MS 
processes, and I see that Mawaki has noted the definition with some 
enthusiasm, can we attempt what could be a 'grand reconciliation' :) ... 
Between the so called MSist on one hand and those who profess global 
democratic governance (called MLists by detractors), which division I 
understand has almost universally been cited as the key factor causing 
rifts in the IG related civil society, and making its contribution far 
less effective than it could have been. A worthy cause to attempt, 
anyone would say.

I propose that the IGC adopts the following text by consensus.

"With democratic multistakeholder processes we mean an equal footing 
only for means and forums of deliberations and possible recommendation 
(non binding) giving. The term 'equal footing' does not extent to 
decision making and implementation."

Now, if people want to keep the issue of technical standards related and 
other decisions out of such a formulation (as I would bec it admits of a 
different dynamics) we can make clear that we are taking of public 
policy decision  making, something which in fact is clear and given when 
we begin to discuss democracy , which is the present context. but, still 
can make it explicit, if only to avoid getting into that customary mess 
of a policy processes related discussions being responded to with a 
technical decisions related comment(s). So, maybe

"With democratic multistakeholder processes for public policies 
development we mean an equal footing only for means and forums  of 
deliberations and possible recommendation making (non binding) . The 
term 'equal footing' does not extent to decision making and implementation."

The NEt Mundial document recommended that the ideas and concepts related 
to democratic MS processes be discussed further and clarified. By 
attempting the above, we will only be taking forward the work of NetMundial.

parminder



>
> It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
> need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
>
> avri
> m17m.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 drc at virtualized.org  Sun Jul 27 00:21:41 2014
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:21:41 -0700
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org>

Parminder,

On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:19 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Your whole argument below depends on making a clean distinction between scenario 1: all root servers acting as one - the root server community, and scenario 2;  one root server operator  takes a defiant stand.

McTim asked 'The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing the serve the root without censorship?"'

I generally do not consider imposing censorship taking "a defiant stand", but I gather you have a different view.

> We know that it is only the US gov that can today make a 'problematic' change in the root.

For such a "problematic" change to be made, the US government would have to contravene pretty much every Internet and telecommunications policy they have instituted and promoted since (at least) 1996 or so.  Could the US government do so?  In theory, yes. In theory, the host country of the entity making changes to the root zone could do a lot of things. However, since the Internet has been in operation, the US government has not made "problematic" changes in the root despite being at war, imposing sanction, having had embassies overrun, not having diplomatic relations, changing from Democratic to Republican and vice versa a number of times, etc., etc.  I remain skeptical that the US government would see it in their best interests to make one of these "problematic" changes. However for the sake of argument...

> It should be obvious that when US gov does it, the root servers owned by the US gov will follow suit. Next, it is extremely unlikely that any such 'problematic change' will be made without some kind of legal backing, whether of the foreign assets regulation kind or one about alleged intellectual property violation.

Presumably you mean "_with_ some kind of legal backing".  Again, for the sake of argument, I'll just ignore the likelihood of lawsuits, appeals, temporary restraining orders, etc.

> In either case, or other possible similar ones, all US based root serves (10 out of the total of 13) will have to comply and follow the changes made by the US gov in the authoritative file. That leaves the 3 non US root server operators... With the DNNSEC in operation (and I have always contended, even otherwise) they do not have much of an option.

Of course they have options -- they provide root service voluntarily after all. I believe an exhaustive list of those options would be:

a) serve the new zone unmodified
b) modify the zone and serve it
c) refuse to serve the new zone and maintain the last known good zone, at least as long as the DNSSEC signature is valid
d) obtain a different root zone (signed under a new key) from a new maintenance/signing body
e) turn off their root server

Of those option (and assuming for simplicity the Evil US government has removed a top-level domain as one example of their evilness):

- If (a) is chosen, and validating resolver operators do nothing, the Evil US government wins.

- If (b) is chosen, validating resolvers will ignore the responses. Resolvers that do not validate would serve back the responses to end users, but this would likely result in end user confusion as sometimes names would resolve and sometimes they wouldn't (depending on which root server the resolver happens to query).

- If (c) is chosen, validating resolvers will continue to work and their operators would have a couple of weeks to figure out what they wanted to do. However, as with option (b) there would likely be end user confusion as depending on what root server the resolver queries, the same name may or may not resolve.

- If (d) is chosen, validating resolver operators would need to update their trust anchors to point to the new signing authority and only list the root servers serving the zone under the new key.  Since presumably all the root servers listed would have a consistent root zone, there would be no end user confusion.

- if (e) is chosen, load would shift to the remaining root servers, potentially resulting in resolution failures as the other root servers began to get overloaded (unless action were taken to expand the capacity of the remaining servers, of course).

My guess is that if the US government were to run amok and modify the root zone outside of existing policy/process, most of the root server operators (including the US ones not directly affiliated with the US government) would choose (e) as a first step, followed (as quickly as possible) by (d).  The ones outside the US would probably do (c), followed quickly by (d).  

However, you'll note from the above that the important players aren't really the root server operators.  Root servers are, after all, merely a distribution channel. I personally believe their operators would, in the face of out-of-policy changes, choose not to play, but that's just my opinion. What isn't an opinion: the folks who really matter in these scenarios are the resolver operators.  It is the resolver operators that control the list of root servers to query and the DNSSEC key to trust (and whether or not they even bother with DNSSEC).  And many of the larger resolver operators already mirror the root zone themselves so they don't actually even query the root servers. Since they fetch the root zone themselves, it is easy for them to fetch it (and its trust anchor if they're doing DNSSEC) from a different place than they do now.

So, in the scenarios you posit, the end result would be to force migration away from the current system (the one the US has been arguing for for almost 2 decades) and at the same time, creating a vast amount of instability and potential for end user confusion. I remain highly skeptical that _anyone_ in the US government would see this in their best interests. Ever. So perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree.

> Considering that many if not most of these new root servers may go to developing countries, in the same way that there are strong developed country alliances, it is very likely that an operator in India will have agreement with another in Ghana and  a third one in Argentina to stick out against any effort by the US to unilaterally enforce its law and/ or standards on the world.

Just in case it isn't obvious, DNS resolvers do not understand geo-political boundaries. Most resolvers pick the root server that responds the quickest, which is typically the server that is network topologically, not necessarily geographically or geo-politically (even within a country), closest (some resolvers always pick root servers at random, but these are increasingly rare).  However, again for the sake of argument, ignoring that...

The options I list above would apply to the root server operators in India, Ghana, Argentina, etc. as well. What agreements the root server operators have among themselves isn't particularly relevant. What matters is who the resolver operators trust. Unless the root server operators in India, Ghana, Argentina, et al., also got into the business of generating and signing a root zone that they would then serve along with distributing the trust anchor for that root zone (and get resolver operators to configure that trust anchor), it isn't clear to me the point of such an agreement (well, other than political grandstanding).

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140726/08c02189/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140726/08c02189/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 27 04:36:01 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:06:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net> <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net>

David

I agree with all your statements of fact below, though not necessarily 
with what you yourself describe as - or will agree are - opinions.

In my view, the operative part in your email below is

"My guess is that if the US government were to run amok and modify the 
root zone outside of existing policy/process, most of the root server 
operators (including the US ones not directly affiliated with the US 
government) would choose (e) as a first step, followed (as quickly as 
possible) by (d).  The ones outside the US would probably do (c), 
followed quickly by (d).  "

And I will repeat your (c), (d) and (e)

"c) refuse to serve the new zone and maintain the last known good zone, 
at least as long as the DNSSEC signature is valid"
"d) obtain a different root zone (signed under a new key) from a new 
maintenance/signing body"
"e) turn off their root server"

Leaving the intermediary steps (c) or (e), you agree that in case US 
makes any root changes outside the ICANN process ( motivated by, say, 
the US executive's needs or a court order) a new root maintenance/ 
signing body will immediately be needed. That is pretty big, youd agree.

However, at the opinion level, you simply discount the possibility of 
such an action emanating from the US gov/ courts bec you think that it 
contravenes US's existing policies and record.

You responded to McTim's question about a possible Indian government's 
interference with a (now) possible India located root server not just by 
a political 'opinion' that India is unlikely to do such an act which 
violates global Internet's integrity and would be against its formal or 
informal global commitments. You actually developed a scenario of how 
such an act by the Indian government would simply be of little practical 
value, and therefore implying that (1) India would probably not do it, 
and (2) even if India did it, the global Internet will be largely safe. 
Fair enough.

Perhaps you might realise that Indian record of entering into and 
fulfilling international obligations is by far much better than of the 
US. In fact, the US has kind of, perhaps, the worst global record for 
unilateral actions in defiance of global norms when it suits its own 
interests. If you disagree, we can discuss this point further. (BTW, I 
am sure you have heard of drone attacks on Pakistan territory, often 
guided simply by the location data of a targetted mobile phone!)

Therefore, as McTim and apparently you seek/ build forward-looking 
scenarios to ensure the safety of the global Internet in the imaginary 
case of India getting one among many of the root servers and then one 
day deciding to do something funny and out of order, why should we, as a 
global community, not think of such forward looking scenarios with the 
US sitting over the single authoritative root file.

And as we think of such a scenario and see that if US executive or 
courts ever order one root change outside the ICANN process we will 
immediately need a new root zone maintenance/ signing body (obviously 
out of the reach of US's jurisdiction), I dont see why we should not 
already be seeking such a body (subject to international instead of Us 
law). I as a non US citizen certainly do not see any reason. In fact we 
now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from the root file.

Where else do we wait for a complete disaster to actually take place 
before we start to make arrangements to safeguard ourselves from 
disasters? This one is imminent. If it is not this court order, it will 
certainly come sooner than later with regard to the hundreds of new 
gtlds that are being instituted. I often use the example of a generic 
drugs company doing global trade in generic drugs whose gtld is sought 
to be seized by big pharma through US court action. In fact, the 
application of US jurisdiction already could be having the 'chilling 
effect' of dissuading some global business from seeking and using gtlds 
in any major way because it makes a very big component of their business 
subject to US law, which they may or may not want to happen.

Are these not major problems of global governance. IANA transition issue 
is supposed to be basically about these huge current and impending 
problems. We need global discussions about them and their possible 
resolution.... The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out 
right now in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil 
society should sit up and reflect about...

parminder

On Sunday 27 July 2014 09:51 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:19 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> Your whole argument below depends on making a clean distinction 
>> between scenario 1: all root servers acting as one - the root server 
>> community, and scenario 2;  one root server operator  takes a defiant 
>> stand.
>
> McTim asked 'The question in my mind is "would those governments be 
> willing the serve the root without censorship?"'
>
> I generally do not consider imposing censorship taking "a defiant 
> stand", but I gather you have a different view.
>
>> We know that it is only the US gov that can today make a 
>> 'problematic' change in the root.
>
> For such a "problematic" change to be made, the US government would 
> have to contravene pretty much every Internet and telecommunications 
> policy they have instituted and promoted since (at least) 1996 or so. 
>  Could the US government do so?  In theory, yes. In theory, the host 
> country of the entity making changes to the root zone could do a lot 
> of things. However, since the Internet has been in operation, the US 
> government has not made "problematic" changes in the root despite 
> being at war, imposing sanction, having had embassies overrun, not 
> having diplomatic relations, changing from Democratic to Republican 
> and vice versa a number of times, etc., etc.  I remain skeptical that 
> the US government would see it in their best interests to make one of 
> these "problematic" changes. However for the sake of argument...
>
>> It should be obvious that when US gov does it, the root servers owned 
>> by the US gov will follow suit. Next, it is extremely unlikely that 
>> any such 'problematic change' will be made without some kind of legal 
>> backing, whether of the foreign assets regulation kind or one about 
>> alleged intellectual property violation.
>
> Presumably you mean "_with_ some kind of legal backing".  Again, for 
> the sake of argument, I'll just ignore the likelihood of lawsuits, 
> appeals, temporary restraining orders, etc.
>
>> In either case, or other possible similar ones, all US based root 
>> serves (10 out of the total of 13) will have to comply and follow the 
>> changes made by the US gov in the authoritative file. That leaves the 
>> 3 non US root server operators... With the DNNSEC in operation (and I 
>> have always contended, even otherwise) they do not have much of an 
>> option.
>
> Of course they have options -- they provide root service voluntarily 
> after all. I believe an exhaustive list of those options would be:
>
> a) serve the new zone unmodified
> b) modify the zone and serve it
> c) refuse to serve the new zone and maintain the last known good zone, 
> at least as long as the DNSSEC signature is valid
> d) obtain a different root zone (signed under a new key) from a new 
> maintenance/signing body
> e) turn off their root server
>
> Of those option (and assuming for simplicity the Evil US government 
> has removed a top-level domain as one example of their evilness):
>
> - If (a) is chosen, and validating resolver operators do nothing, the 
> Evil US government wins.
>
> - If (b) is chosen, validating resolvers will ignore the responses. 
> Resolvers that do not validate would serve back the responses to end 
> users, but this would likely result in end user confusion as sometimes 
> names would resolve and sometimes they wouldn't (depending on which 
> root server the resolver happens to query).
>
> - If (c) is chosen, validating resolvers will continue to work and 
> their operators would have a couple of weeks to figure out what they 
> wanted to do. However, as with option (b) there would likely be end 
> user confusion as depending on what root server the resolver queries, 
> the same name may or may not resolve.
>
> - If (d) is chosen, validating resolver operators would need to update 
> their trust anchors to point to the new signing authority and only 
> list the root servers serving the zone under the new key.  Since 
> presumably all the root servers listed would have a consistent root 
> zone, there would be no end user confusion.
>
> - if (e) is chosen, load would shift to the remaining root servers, 
> potentially resulting in resolution failures as the other root servers 
> began to get overloaded (unless action were taken to expand the 
> capacity of the remaining servers, of course).
>
> My guess is that if the US government were to run amok and modify the 
> root zone outside of existing policy/process, most of the root server 
> operators (including the US ones not directly affiliated with the US 
> government) would choose (e) as a first step, followed (as quickly as 
> possible) by (d).  The ones outside the US would probably do (c), 
> followed quickly by (d).
>
> However, you'll note from the above that the important players aren't 
> really the root server operators.  Root servers are, after all, merely 
> a distribution channel. I personally believe their operators would, in 
> the face of out-of-policy changes, choose not to play, but that's just 
> my opinion. What isn't an opinion: the folks who really matter in 
> these scenarios are the resolver operators.  It is the resolver 
> operators that control the list of root servers to query and the 
> DNSSEC key to trust (and whether or not they even bother with DNSSEC). 
>  And many of the larger resolver operators already mirror the root 
> zone themselves so they don't actually even query the root servers. 
> Since they fetch the root zone themselves, it is easy for them to 
> fetch it (and its trust anchor if they're doing DNSSEC) from a 
> different place than they do now.
>
> So, in the scenarios you posit, the end result would be to force 
> migration away from the current system (the one the US has been 
> arguing for for almost 2 decades) and at the same time, creating a 
> vast amount of instability and potential for end user confusion. I 
> remain highly skeptical that _anyone_ in the US government would see 
> this in their best interests. Ever. So perhaps we'll just have to 
> agree to disagree.
>
>> Considering that many if not most of these new root servers may go to 
>> developing countries, in the same way that there are strong developed 
>> country alliances, it is very likely that an operator in India will 
>> have agreement with another in Ghana and  a third one in Argentina to 
>> stick out against any effort by the US to unilaterally enforce its 
>> law and/ or standards on the world.
>
> Just in case it isn't obvious, DNS resolvers do not understand 
> geo-political boundaries. Most resolvers pick the root server that 
> responds the quickest, which is typically the server that is network 
> topologically, not necessarily geographically or geo-politically (even 
> within a country), closest (some resolvers always pick root servers at 
> random, but these are increasingly rare).  However, again for the sake 
> of argument, ignoring that...
>
> The options I list above would apply to the root server operators in 
> India, Ghana, Argentina, etc. as well. What agreements the root server 
> operators have among themselves isn't particularly relevant. What 
> matters is who the resolver operators trust. Unless the root server 
> operators in India, Ghana, Argentina, et al., also got into the 
> business of generating and signing a root zone that they would then 
> serve along with distributing the trust anchor for that root zone (and 
> get resolver operators to configure that trust anchor), it isn't clear 
> to me the point of such an agreement (well, other than political 
> grandstanding).
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/ea0cf70d/attachment.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jul 27 04:54:39 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:54:39 +1000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>

definitely I think there is room for some sort of consensual statement here, 
and this goes a long way towards getting one.

I just re read the relevant sections of NetMundial statement - which has 
some very good inclusions as regards MS and (on my first quick reading) does 
not conflict with the sort of separation of consultation and policy 
development (multistakeholder) and final decision making (may be a different 
process) which both Avri and Parminder are alluding to.

If we are developing a statement I just wonder about the wisdom of 
concentrating on "on an equal footing" - to me its a bit like "enhanced 
cooperation" and not necessarily meaningful to our future.

Ian Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: parminder
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 1:54 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex 
IANA transition process


On Saturday 26 July 2014 08:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Snip
> Whenever I need a definition, I use:
>
>
> The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
> for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
> participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
> recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
> may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
> always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
> the implementations.


The definition above says that the 'equal footing' part is only for
participation in deliberation of issues and giving (I understand,
non-binding) recommendations of solutions. And that it does not apply to
actual decision making and implementation. However, this is not how the
term 'equal footing' is employed in the current MS discourse and the
MSist text that is sought to pushed into global documents, including at
NetMundial, CSTD WGs, and almost everywhere else. (I can provide any
number of proofs to support this assertion.) There is obviously a world
of difference between 'equal footing' for deliberations and rec giving,
on one hand, and public policy decision making and implementation, on
the other.

But lets not crib over the past. If this is the way Avri looks at MS
processes, and I see that Mawaki has noted the definition with some
enthusiasm, can we attempt what could be a 'grand reconciliation' :) ...
Between the so called MSist on one hand and those who profess global
democratic governance (called MLists by detractors), which division I
understand has almost universally been cited as the key factor causing
rifts in the IG related civil society, and making its contribution far
less effective than it could have been. A worthy cause to attempt,
anyone would say.

I propose that the IGC adopts the following text by consensus.

"With democratic multistakeholder processes we mean an equal footing
only for means and forums of deliberations and possible recommendation
(non binding) giving. The term 'equal footing' does not extent to
decision making and implementation."

Now, if people want to keep the issue of technical standards related and
other decisions out of such a formulation (as I would bec it admits of a
different dynamics) we can make clear that we are taking of public
policy decision  making, something which in fact is clear and given when
we begin to discuss democracy , which is the present context. but, still
can make it explicit, if only to avoid getting into that customary mess
of a policy processes related discussions being responded to with a
technical decisions related comment(s). So, maybe

"With democratic multistakeholder processes for public policies
development we mean an equal footing only for means and forums  of
deliberations and possible recommendation making (non binding) . The
term 'equal footing' does not extent to decision making and implementation."

The NEt Mundial document recommended that the ideas and concepts related
to democratic MS processes be discussed further and clarified. By
attempting the above, we will only be taking forward the work of NetMundial.

parminder



>
> It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
> need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
>
> avri
> m17m.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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 05:06:23 2014
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:06:23 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <7271F90B-DE5D-4746-B78A-0B1E127AE050@gmail.com>

+1


Le 27 juil. 2014 à 10:54, Ian Peter a écrit :

> definitely I think there is room for some sort of consensual statement here, and this goes a long way towards getting one.
> 
> I just re read the relevant sections of NetMundial statement - which has some very good inclusions as regards MS and (on my first quick reading) does not conflict with the sort of separation of consultation and policy development (multistakeholder) and final decision making (may be a different process) which both Avri and Parminder are alluding to.
> 
> If we are developing a statement I just wonder about the wisdom of concentrating on "on an equal footing" - to me its a bit like "enhanced cooperation" and not necessarily meaningful to our future.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
> 
> On Saturday 26 July 2014 08:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Snip
>> Whenever I need a definition, I use:
>> 
>> 
>> The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
>> for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
>> participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
>> recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
>> may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
>> always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
>> the implementations.
> 
> 
> The definition above says that the 'equal footing' part is only for
> participation in deliberation of issues and giving (I understand,
> non-binding) recommendations of solutions. And that it does not apply to
> actual decision making and implementation. However, this is not how the
> term 'equal footing' is employed in the current MS discourse and the
> MSist text that is sought to pushed into global documents, including at
> NetMundial, CSTD WGs, and almost everywhere else. (I can provide any
> number of proofs to support this assertion.) There is obviously a world
> of difference between 'equal footing' for deliberations and rec giving,
> on one hand, and public policy decision making and implementation, on
> the other.
> 
> But lets not crib over the past. If this is the way Avri looks at MS
> processes, and I see that Mawaki has noted the definition with some
> enthusiasm, can we attempt what could be a 'grand reconciliation' :) ...
> Between the so called MSist on one hand and those who profess global
> democratic governance (called MLists by detractors), which division I
> understand has almost universally been cited as the key factor causing
> rifts in the IG related civil society, and making its contribution far
> less effective than it could have been. A worthy cause to attempt,
> anyone would say.
> 
> I propose that the IGC adopts the following text by consensus.
> 
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes we mean an equal footing
> only for means and forums of deliberations and possible recommendation
> (non binding) giving. The term 'equal footing' does not extent to
> decision making and implementation."
> 
> Now, if people want to keep the issue of technical standards related and
> other decisions out of such a formulation (as I would bec it admits of a
> different dynamics) we can make clear that we are taking of public
> policy decision  making, something which in fact is clear and given when
> we begin to discuss democracy , which is the present context. but, still
> can make it explicit, if only to avoid getting into that customary mess
> of a policy processes related discussions being responded to with a
> technical decisions related comment(s). So, maybe
> 
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes for public policies
> development we mean an equal footing only for means and forums  of
> deliberations and possible recommendation making (non binding) . The
> term 'equal footing' does not extent to decision making and implementation."
> 
> The NEt Mundial document recommended that the ideas and concepts related
> to democratic MS processes be discussed further and clarified. By
> attempting the above, we will only be taking forward the work of NetMundial.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
>> need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
>> 
>> avri
>> m17m.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 05:41:43 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:41:43 +0500
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>

I somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF will
never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. Anyways, so
much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.

On Sunday, 27 July 2014, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> definitely I think there is room for some sort of consensual statement
> here, and this goes a long way towards getting one.
>
> I just re read the relevant sections of NetMundial statement - which has
> some very good inclusions as regards MS and (on my first quick reading)
> does not conflict with the sort of separation of consultation and policy
> development (multistakeholder) and final decision making (may be a
> different process) which both Avri and Parminder are alluding to.
>
> If we are developing a statement I just wonder about the wisdom of
> concentrating on "on an equal footing" - to me its a bit like "enhanced
> cooperation" and not necessarily meaningful to our future.
>
> Ian Peter
>
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
> IANA transition process
>
>
> On Saturday 26 July 2014 08:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Snip
>> Whenever I need a definition, I use:
>>
>>
>> The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
>> for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
>> participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
>> recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
>> may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
>> always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
>> the implementations.
>>
>
>
> The definition above says that the 'equal footing' part is only for
> participation in deliberation of issues and giving (I understand,
> non-binding) recommendations of solutions. And that it does not apply to
> actual decision making and implementation. However, this is not how the
> term 'equal footing' is employed in the current MS discourse and the
> MSist text that is sought to pushed into global documents, including at
> NetMundial, CSTD WGs, and almost everywhere else. (I can provide any
> number of proofs to support this assertion.) There is obviously a world
> of difference between 'equal footing' for deliberations and rec giving,
> on one hand, and public policy decision making and implementation, on
> the other.
>
> But lets not crib over the past. If this is the way Avri looks at MS
> processes, and I see that Mawaki has noted the definition with some
> enthusiasm, can we attempt what could be a 'grand reconciliation' :) ...
> Between the so called MSist on one hand and those who profess global
> democratic governance (called MLists by detractors), which division I
> understand has almost universally been cited as the key factor causing
> rifts in the IG related civil society, and making its contribution far
> less effective than it could have been. A worthy cause to attempt,
> anyone would say.
>
> I propose that the IGC adopts the following text by consensus.
>
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes we mean an equal footing
> only for means and forums of deliberations and possible recommendation
> (non binding) giving. The term 'equal footing' does not extent to
> decision making and implementation."
>
> Now, if people want to keep the issue of technical standards related and
> other decisions out of such a formulation (as I would bec it admits of a
> different dynamics) we can make clear that we are taking of public
> policy decision  making, something which in fact is clear and given when
> we begin to discuss democracy , which is the present context. but, still
> can make it explicit, if only to avoid getting into that customary mess
> of a policy processes related discussions being responded to with a
> technical decisions related comment(s). So, maybe
>
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes for public policies
> development we mean an equal footing only for means and forums  of
> deliberations and possible recommendation making (non binding) . The
> term 'equal footing' does not extent to decision making and
> implementation."
>
> The NEt Mundial document recommended that the ideas and concepts related
> to democratic MS processes be discussed further and clarified. By
> attempting the above, we will only be taking forward the work of
> NetMundial.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>> It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
>> need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
>>
>> avri
>> m17m.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
>
>

-- 
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/91689ee3/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jul 27 06:04:55 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:34:55 +0530
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <53D4CEC7.2070101@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 27 July 2014 02:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> definitely I think there is room for some sort of consensual statement 
> here, and this goes a long way towards getting one.
>
> I just re read the relevant sections of NetMundial statement - which 
> has some very good inclusions as regards MS and (on my first quick 
> reading) does not conflict with the sort of separation of consultation 
> and policy development (multistakeholder) and final decision making 
> (may be a different process) which both Avri and Parminder are 
> alluding to.
>
> If we are developing a statement I just wonder about the wisdom of 
> concentrating on "on an equal footing" - to me its a bit like 
> "enhanced cooperation" and not necessarily meaningful to our future.

In a good debate, whether the two sides agree on substantive issues or 
not, it is always useful, and mostly possible, to agree on what are the 
key issues that are the matter of debate. "Equal footing' is such key 
issue. If we skirt it, we remain where we are, wrapped in obfuscations, 
often blaming others for positions that they may not hold and so on. It 
is best to know what positions we hold, vis a vis key matters of debate.

BTW, the following is an excerpt from the NetMundial document. (emphasis 
added.)

(begins)

….. list of points that need better understanding and further discussion 
in appropriate fora:

1. Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet 
governance,/*including the meaning and application of equal footing. */


(ends)

parminder



>
> Ian Peter
>
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the 
> complex IANA transition process
>
>
> On Saturday 26 July 2014 08:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Snip
>> Whenever I need a definition, I use:
>>
>>
>> The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
>> for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
>> participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
>> recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
>> may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
>> always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
>> the implementations.
>
>
> The definition above says that the 'equal footing' part is only for
> participation in deliberation of issues and giving (I understand,
> non-binding) recommendations of solutions. And that it does not apply to
> actual decision making and implementation. However, this is not how the
> term 'equal footing' is employed in the current MS discourse and the
> MSist text that is sought to pushed into global documents, including at
> NetMundial, CSTD WGs, and almost everywhere else. (I can provide any
> number of proofs to support this assertion.) There is obviously a world
> of difference between 'equal footing' for deliberations and rec giving,
> on one hand, and public policy decision making and implementation, on
> the other.
>
> But lets not crib over the past. If this is the way Avri looks at MS
> processes, and I see that Mawaki has noted the definition with some
> enthusiasm, can we attempt what could be a 'grand reconciliation' :) ...
> Between the so called MSist on one hand and those who profess global
> democratic governance (called MLists by detractors), which division I
> understand has almost universally been cited as the key factor causing
> rifts in the IG related civil society, and making its contribution far
> less effective than it could have been. A worthy cause to attempt,
> anyone would say.
>
> I propose that the IGC adopts the following text by consensus.
>
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes we mean an equal footing
> only for means and forums of deliberations and possible recommendation
> (non binding) giving. The term 'equal footing' does not extent to
> decision making and implementation."
>
> Now, if people want to keep the issue of technical standards related and
> other decisions out of such a formulation (as I would bec it admits of a
> different dynamics) we can make clear that we are taking of public
> policy decision  making, something which in fact is clear and given when
> we begin to discuss democracy , which is the present context. but, still
> can make it explicit, if only to avoid getting into that customary mess
> of a policy processes related discussions being responded to with a
> technical decisions related comment(s). So, maybe
>
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes for public policies
> development we mean an equal footing only for means and forums  of
> deliberations and possible recommendation making (non binding) . The
> term 'equal footing' does not extent to decision making and 
> implementation."
>
> The NEt Mundial document recommended that the ideas and concepts related
> to democratic MS processes be discussed further and clarified. By
> attempting the above, we will only be taking forward the work of 
> NetMundial.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>>
>> It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
>> need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
>>
>> avri
>> m17m.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/4bd8761f/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Sun Jul 27 08:32:11 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:32:11 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>



On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF will
> never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. Anyways, so
> much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.


I tend to disagree.  For me it is  a critical phrase in the definition
for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a few
governments and misunderstood by many.  It is such a simple term, with a
simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using it.  And I
think that many different groups can be on an equal footing with each
other at the same time.  For example, we could have a global
multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal
footing.  Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to
discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk
when they went off to talk among themselves.  To my mind there is no
dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant
exchange without equal footing.

I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on an
equal footing the better.  But the realist in me realizes that we aren't
there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct democracy in
my lifetime.  That is why I indicate that in those cases, where the
final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it "may be
assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these decision makers
are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions
and the implementations."  Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.

The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we
obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in
various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to
particular cases   The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking
about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy
or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture design
in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or the ITU on
telephone numbers.  The point is that as much as possible the discussion
leading up to the actual decisions, including the recommendation of
solutions, it should be multistakeholder.  And in as many cases as
possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.

As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people
neutral in that respect.  I find it works well for me both in explaining
things, in studying things and in modeling various real life scenarios
and in tactical thinking for advocacy.

Your mileage may vary.

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 nnenna75 at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 09:09:44 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:09:44 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CADFgh12YSsoquPMYzaHaopsF3ODsCWxnhH=R_cL3oELDDmEYXQ@mail.gmail.com>

Avri, how will this "equal footing" within stakeholder groups, as was seen
in NetMundial include actors who are not physically present?

Or we talking process  or events or both? Are we talking  "tacking Internet
issues on global level" or are we including regional and national levels?

Does anyone have  an "equal footing" example at country levels?

... Still thinking..

Nnenna


On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> > somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF will
> > never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. Anyways, so
> > much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.
>
>
> I tend to disagree.  For me it is  a critical phrase in the definition
> for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a few
> governments and misunderstood by many.  It is such a simple term, with a
> simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using it.  And I
> think that many different groups can be on an equal footing with each
> other at the same time.  For example, we could have a global
> multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal
> footing.  Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to
> discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk
> when they went off to talk among themselves.  To my mind there is no
> dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant
> exchange without equal footing.
>
> I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on an
> equal footing the better.  But the realist in me realizes that we aren't
> there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct democracy in
> my lifetime.  That is why I indicate that in those cases, where the
> final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it "may be
> assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these decision makers
> are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions
> and the implementations."  Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.
>
> The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we
> obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in
> various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to
> particular cases   The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking
> about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy
> or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture design
> in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or the ITU on
> telephone numbers.  The point is that as much as possible the discussion
> leading up to the actual decisions, including the recommendation of
> solutions, it should be multistakeholder.  And in as many cases as
> possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.
>
> As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people
> neutral in that respect.  I find it works well for me both in explaining
> things, in studying things and in modeling various real life scenarios
> and in tactical thinking for advocacy.
>
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/e3525226/attachment.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 09:11:33 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 09:11:33 -0400
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6pbbLUstp3aZVuyENjKL6sFwK2ajAygGsheSA4Fw35fg@mail.gmail.com>

Do you think the problem might be in the words. I have an intense dislike
of the term "level playing field" because it is completely blind to the
state of the players - are they all wearing football boots, are they all
properly fed? "Equal footing" expresses a similar situation - everyone has
the same surface underneath their feet, but what about the feet themselves?
Would it be possible to express what we want to say with a different
metaphor, or even try to fit it into plain words?
Deirdre


On 27 July 2014 08:32, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> > somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF will
> > never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. Anyways, so
> > much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.
>
>
> I tend to disagree.  For me it is  a critical phrase in the definition
> for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a few
> governments and misunderstood by many.  It is such a simple term, with a
> simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using it.  And I
> think that many different groups can be on an equal footing with each
> other at the same time.  For example, we could have a global
> multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal
> footing.  Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to
> discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk
> when they went off to talk among themselves.  To my mind there is no
> dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant
> exchange without equal footing.
>
> I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on an
> equal footing the better.  But the realist in me realizes that we aren't
> there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct democracy in
> my lifetime.  That is why I indicate that in those cases, where the
> final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it "may be
> assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these decision makers
> are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions
> and the implementations."  Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.
>
> The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we
> obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in
> various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to
> particular cases   The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking
> about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy
> or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture design
> in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or the ITU on
> telephone numbers.  The point is that as much as possible the discussion
> leading up to the actual decisions, including the recommendation of
> solutions, it should be multistakeholder.  And in as many cases as
> possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.
>
> As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people
> neutral in that respect.  I find it works well for me both in explaining
> things, in studying things and in modeling various real life scenarios
> and in tactical thinking for advocacy.
>
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/40538902/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jul 27 09:48:01 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:18:01 +0530
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>


Indeed the term 'equal footing' merits some attention and analysis, as 
the NetMundial outcome document exhorts us to do.

The problem of course is not with the term 'equal footing' itself, but 
we need to look closely at 'equal footing for whom' - something which 
this email will try to do

Democracy's basic idea is of equality of all people, or, in other 
worlds, all people on equal footing. There is simply no democracy 
without that.

Are we calling for equal footing for all people here? Or, since people 
live and see themselves socially as belonging in various social groups, 
an equal footing of social groups of people? ( geographic groups like 
neighbourhoods, villages, towns and nations, or identity based ones - 
which may or may not overlap with geo-based - like gender, ethnicity, 
class, etc).

No, MS-ism does not call for equal footing for people or for social 
groups of people? It calls for equal footing for stakeholders?

There would be no problem if stakeholders were just like natural social 
groups of natural people. But that is not the fact. And to the extent 
that stakeholders, as seen by MSism we find in practice, are *not* just 
natural groups of natural people, the equal footing of stakeholders 
rather than being equal footing of people and their natural groups, 
militates against it. It is in this way that equal-footing MSism 
subverts democracy, that ideology and practice of equal footing of all 
people...

Where does the term stakeholder deviate from people or their natural 
groups? It is easy to see - when the (big) capital owner and the 
(privileged) expert is brought it as special political invitees, or in 
fact political overlords. Both the epithets, 'big' and 'privileged', 
fully apply and are basic to this analysis.

Mark it, the (big) capital owner - hereon, simply business, ,  and the 
(privileged) expert - hereon, simply the tech community - come in a 
second role, for a second political dip, apart from in any case being 
people (the few that they are) in normal people's political 
configurations, either as civil society or as represented by democratic 
governments. In this second role, they claim special characteristics 
whereby they should be given extra political power - respectively, 
owning productive resources, and possessing special knowledge (another 
productive resource in fact). In various MS meetings, these two groups 
openly quote these special characteristics for claiming extra, second 
dip, political power, through an extra seat at the policy table.

Now not only is the 'big business' and 'the special expert' coming in 
for the second time to partake political power whereby some people will 
have twice the political role and power as others, it is much much more 
pernicious. The extremely few - in fact minuscule - number of big 
business and special expert claim the same amount of political space in 
MSism as the whole of civil society and the whole of (however imperfect) 
government-as-people's-representative group. The proportion on two sides 
reminds one of the 1 percent and 99 percent equation of the occupy 
movement. Well, MSism is your reverse occupy movement, where the big 
business is trying to occupy the democracy space, but lets not digress....

One cannot separate nice theoretical sentences about MSism from its 
actual practice - which, as we have seen till now, is strictly based on 
four way equal division of political space among very unequal actors - 
business, tech community, gov and civil society.

It is evident that in the name of equal footing of stakeholders, what is 
being done is that the equal footing among people, and their natural 
groups, is being completely upstaged. That is how and where MSism 
upstages democracy, and all real conceptions of equality....

You want equality of 'real stakeholders', call the next NetMundial and 
the next IGF MAG with say, and I am trying to be very conservative here, 
10 stakeholder groups, *on an equal footing*. Give one place each to 
global reps of women's groups, ethnic minorities, disabled community, 
trade unions, slum residents associations, farmers groups ..... we can 
make 8 stakeholder categories like this. We will then leave one for 
business associations - to be filled in equally by big business reps and 
reps of small businesses. We can have, if you will,  another single 
category of experts with half of them technical experts and half 
relevant social experts.

This will be much closer to equal footing of stakeholders as promoting 
rather than upstaging the democratic ideal of equal footing of all 
people and their natural groups. Any takes for this model of MSism..


parminder



On Sunday 27 July 2014 06:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF will
>> never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. Anyways, so
>> much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.
>
> I tend to disagree.  For me it is  a critical phrase in the definition
> for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a few
> governments and misunderstood by many.  It is such a simple term, with a
> simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using it.  And I
> think that many different groups can be on an equal footing with each
> other at the same time.  For example, we could have a global
> multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal
> footing.  Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to
> discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk
> when they went off to talk among themselves.  To my mind there is no
> dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant
> exchange without equal footing.
>
> I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on an
> equal footing the better.  But the realist in me realizes that we aren't
> there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct democracy in
> my lifetime.  That is why I indicate that in those cases, where the
> final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it "may be
> assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these decision makers
> are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions
> and the implementations."  Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.
>
> The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we
> obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in
> various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to
> particular cases   The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking
> about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy
> or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture design
> in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or the ITU on
> telephone numbers.  The point is that as much as possible the discussion
> leading up to the actual decisions, including the recommendation of
> solutions, it should be multistakeholder.  And in as many cases as
> possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.
>
> As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people
> neutral in that respect.  I find it works well for me both in explaining
> things, in studying things and in modeling various real life scenarios
> and in tactical thinking for advocacy.
>
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> 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 kichango at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 10:16:44 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:16:44 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D4CEC7.2070101@itforchange.net>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <53D4CEC7.2070101@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-VP4oYu6H+xjGvDudtbTydfpAUvxSNnWoL0FVxh_04-w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

"Multistakeholderism" has been such a huge "black box" so far,
notwithstanding some of us being comfortable with the notion and not
finding any issue to contend with, and I'm afraid "equal footing" might
just be yet such another black box we need to disentangle or unbundle. So I
hear what Ian is saying and I don't think it would necessarily miss the
concerns raised by Parminder, as we may put forward some alternate
formulation -- such as a definition in extension -- to spell out our
meaning and a working definition of those terms (and stating explicitly
that such substitution is eaxctly what we're trying to achieve.)

Frankly, the phrase "equal footing" has not helped us that much in our
deliberations. We often talk about human beings being equal, but it seems
to me what we mean is that we all should be recognized equal dignity and be
treated equally (as all of us being humans) and equitably (esp. when
external resources or privileges are involved), regardless of their gender,
 the color of their skin, how/who they worship, or who they love, etc (as
long as the positive rights of others are not infringed upon.) That doesn't
mean we're exactly the same, or that we have the exact same skill set and
same capacities, and as a result, that we are interchangeable in any
position. We still have different skill sets, different capabilities (and
opportunities, for that matter because not all opportunities are dictated
by state regulation) and play different roles in the society but we just no
longer assign these roles dogmatically to people based on, say, their
biology.

I know some of you think: Yeah, giving governments such exclusive role in
policy-making precisely is a dogma. That may well be so, but that is what
we have to work with until such time comes where the world will be such a
different place (meaning where we would have managed to reorganized the
world order) so that a bunch of individuals who did not run for public
office in any given jurisdiction and who call themselves (global) civil
society will find the formula for a globally recognized legitimacy to sit
at the table, hold the pen and sign international or global
multistakeholder agreements to be binding to all stakeholders/parties
including states, cast the vote for the ratification of such agreements and
finally see through to their enforcement. For let's not forget that the
possibility of an international order, including through the use of
international legal instruments, is based on a mutual recognition of
nation-states and an acceptance of ways they should deal with each other
and address their shared concerns. As such, intergovernmental organizations
still have a long way to go and they are entitled to their own and proper
procedures for decision- and policy-making.

One may be tempted to say, we shouldn't bother with that because it is a
state-centric designed system anyway and as such they are not meant to take
the best interest of the people at heart. All what I say to that is, this
is currently the way to (international) legality or any other form of
binding decision-making that will involve and commit governments. We have
to start there and try to evolve the system, or start a revolution. (I do
understand there is such thing as "soft law" but it seems to me there would
be a silent contradiction into advocating for soft law as the way to make
collective decisions for the Internet and then spend so much energy
advocating for the need for civil society to have the exact same formal
role than governments.)

As a result of the above, following is an outline of what "equal footing"
means to me.

- That all stakeholders should enjoy the same access for participation in
the policy deliberations and development. This entails, among other things,
that they have an equitable time for intervention during the oral debates
and that they have enough time to prepare and submit written inputs which
will need to be accounted for in the final outcome.

- Interactive live and plenary discussions must be part of the process
(while making allowance for remote participation). While it is legitimate
for every stakeholder group to consult within themselves, the assumption is
that all significant concerns and possible bones of contention must be
aired publicly and discussed during the plenary multistakeholder
deliberations. The need here is to avoid that after all stakeholders walk
out at the end of the deliberations thinking they have reached some
acceptable agreement on a stable text, one stakeholder group get behind
close door and make substantive changes unilaterally.

To give en example to illustrate why I think "equal" footing" does not mean
we all have the same capacities and roles and that as such we are
interchangeable, the 2012 ITRs (International Telecommunications
Regulations) could have been prepared and drafted in a multistakeholder
fashion a la "equal footing" (as described above.) And still, at the end of
the day, I could not mount a CS coalition from my country for the purposes
of voiding my government signature (or, for a treaty that we CS would
rather see them sign, push a reluctant government aside, grab the pen and
sign it on behalf of my country. Assuming such action can even happen
materially, the outcome of course would not have any material effect in
international affairs. And as a CS I can manifest in the streets or at the
Parliament of my country, but that in itself would not count for
ratification or nullification of any international or global
multistakeholder binding agreement my government has decided to sign or not
to sign. The government will still have to decide to listen to me and make
appropriate changes or nothing will change as far as those decisions are
concerned.

For all the above reasons, I think "equal footing" really applies mainly to
the deliberations of policy development, and it is about equal dignity of
the governed and of the governing, and mutual respect. It is that sense of
equal dignity and mutual respect that provides the foundation for
compelling all stakeholders, chiefly governments, to live up to the outcome
of our collective deliberations while further carrying out the particular
duties in policy-making.

Sorry for the lengthy response. I intend to add a couple of paragraphs to
this addressing specifically "multistakeholderism" and post it later to my
blog.

Thanks,

Mawaki


On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
> On Sunday 27 July 2014 02:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> definitely I think there is room for some sort of consensual statement
> here, and this goes a long way towards getting one.
>
> I just re read the relevant sections of NetMundial statement - which has
> some very good inclusions as regards MS and (on my first quick reading)
> does not conflict with the sort of separation of consultation and policy
> development (multistakeholder) and final decision making (may be a
> different process) which both Avri and Parminder are alluding to.
>
> If we are developing a statement I just wonder about the wisdom of
> concentrating on "on an equal footing" - to me its a bit like "enhanced
> cooperation" and not necessarily meaningful to our future.
>
>
> In a good debate, whether the two sides agree on substantive issues or
> not, it is always useful, and mostly possible, to agree on what are the key
> issues that are the matter of debate. "Equal footing' is such key issue. If
> we skirt it, we remain where we are, wrapped in obfuscations, often blaming
> others for positions that they may not hold and so on. It is best to know
> what positions we hold, vis a vis key matters of debate.
>
> BTW, the following is an excerpt from the NetMundial document. (emphasis
> added.)
>
> (begins)
>
> ..... list of points that need better understanding and further discussion
> in appropriate fora:
>
> 1. Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet
> governance,*including the meaning and application of equal footing. *
>
> (ends)
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> -----Original Message----- From: parminder
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex
> IANA transition process
>
>
> On Saturday 26 July 2014 08:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Snip
> Whenever I need a definition, I use:
>
>
> The study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow
> for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to
> participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the
> recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation
> may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are
> always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and
> the implementations.
>
>
>
> The definition above says that the 'equal footing' part is only for
> participation in deliberation of issues and giving (I understand,
> non-binding) recommendations of solutions. And that it does not apply to
> actual decision making and implementation. However, this is not how the
> term 'equal footing' is employed in the current MS discourse and the
> MSist text that is sought to pushed into global documents, including at
> NetMundial, CSTD WGs, and almost everywhere else. (I can provide any
> number of proofs to support this assertion.) There is obviously a world
> of difference between 'equal footing' for deliberations and rec giving,
> on one hand, and public policy decision making and implementation, on
> the other.
>
> But lets not crib over the past. If this is the way Avri looks at MS
> processes, and I see that Mawaki has noted the definition with some
> enthusiasm, can we attempt what could be a 'grand reconciliation' :) ...
> Between the so called MSist on one hand and those who profess global
> democratic governance (called MLists by detractors), which division I
> understand has almost universally been cited as the key factor causing
> rifts in the IG related civil society, and making its contribution far
> less effective than it could have been. A worthy cause to attempt,
> anyone would say.
>
> I propose that the IGC adopts the following text by consensus.
>
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes we mean an equal footing
> only for means and forums of deliberations and possible recommendation
> (non binding) giving. The term 'equal footing' does not extent to
> decision making and implementation."
>
> Now, if people want to keep the issue of technical standards related and
> other decisions out of such a formulation (as I would bec it admits of a
> different dynamics) we can make clear that we are taking of public
> policy decision  making, something which in fact is clear and given when
> we begin to discuss democracy , which is the present context. but, still
> can make it explicit, if only to avoid getting into that customary mess
> of a policy processes related discussions being responded to with a
> technical decisions related comment(s). So, maybe
>
> "With democratic multistakeholder processes for public policies
> development we mean an equal footing only for means and forums  of
> deliberations and possible recommendation making (non binding) . The
> term 'equal footing' does not extent to decision making and
> implementation."
>
> The NEt Mundial document recommended that the ideas and concepts related
> to democratic MS processes be discussed further and clarified. By
> attempting the above, we will only be taking forward the work of
> NetMundial.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> It is just hard to live up to, and each of the words in the definition
> need to be defined as well.  But it is my working definition.
>
> avri
> m17m.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/1e8df185/attachment.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  Sun Jul 27 10:44:26 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>

In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally good for the foxes...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:48 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process


Indeed the term 'equal footing' merits some attention and analysis, as the NetMundial outcome document exhorts us to do.

The problem of course is not with the term 'equal footing' itself, but we need to look closely at 'equal footing for whom' - something which this email will try to do

Democracy's basic idea is of equality of all people, or, in other worlds, all people on equal footing. There is simply no democracy without that.

Are we calling for equal footing for all people here? Or, since people live and see themselves socially as belonging in various social groups, an equal footing of social groups of people? ( geographic groups like neighbourhoods, villages, towns and nations, or identity based ones - which may or may not overlap with geo-based - like gender, ethnicity, class, etc).

No, MS-ism does not call for equal footing for people or for social groups of people? It calls for equal footing for stakeholders?

There would be no problem if stakeholders were just like natural social groups of natural people. But that is not the fact. And to the extent that stakeholders, as seen by MSism we find in practice, are *not* just natural groups of natural people, the equal footing of stakeholders rather than being equal footing of people and their natural groups, militates against it. It is in this way that equal-footing MSism subverts democracy, that ideology and practice of equal footing of all people...

Where does the term stakeholder deviate from people or their natural groups? It is easy to see - when the (big) capital owner and the
(privileged) expert is brought it as special political invitees, or in fact political overlords. Both the epithets, 'big' and 'privileged', fully apply and are basic to this analysis.

Mark it, the (big) capital owner - hereon, simply business, ,  and the
(privileged) expert - hereon, simply the tech community - come in a second role, for a second political dip, apart from in any case being people (the few that they are) in normal people's political configurations, either as civil society or as represented by democratic governments. In this second role, they claim special characteristics whereby they should be given extra political power - respectively, owning productive resources, and possessing special knowledge (another productive resource in fact). In various MS meetings, these two groups openly quote these special characteristics for claiming extra, second dip, political power, through an extra seat at the policy table.

Now not only is the 'big business' and 'the special expert' coming in for the second time to partake political power whereby some people will have twice the political role and power as others, it is much much more pernicious. The extremely few - in fact minuscule - number of big business and special expert claim the same amount of political space in MSism as the whole of civil society and the whole of (however imperfect) government-as-people's-representative group. The proportion on two sides reminds one of the 1 percent and 99 percent equation of the occupy movement. Well, MSism is your reverse occupy movement, where the big business is trying to occupy the democracy space, but lets not digress....

One cannot separate nice theoretical sentences about MSism from its actual practice - which, as we have seen till now, is strictly based on four way equal division of political space among very unequal actors - business, tech community, gov and civil society.

It is evident that in the name of equal footing of stakeholders, what is being done is that the equal footing among people, and their natural groups, is being completely upstaged. That is how and where MSism upstages democracy, and all real conceptions of equality....

You want equality of 'real stakeholders', call the next NetMundial and the next IGF MAG with say, and I am trying to be very conservative here,
10 stakeholder groups, *on an equal footing*. Give one place each to global reps of women's groups, ethnic minorities, disabled community, trade unions, slum residents associations, farmers groups ..... we can make 8 stakeholder categories like this. We will then leave one for business associations - to be filled in equally by big business reps and reps of small businesses. We can have, if you will,  another single category of experts with half of them technical experts and half relevant social experts.

This will be much closer to equal footing of stakeholders as promoting rather than upstaging the democratic ideal of equal footing of all people and their natural groups. Any takes for this model of MSism..


parminder



On Sunday 27 July 2014 06:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF 
>> will never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. 
>> Anyways, so much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.
>
> I tend to disagree.  For me it is  a critical phrase in the definition 
> for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a 
> few governments and misunderstood by many.  It is such a simple term, 
> with a simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using 
> it.  And I think that many different groups can be on an equal footing 
> with each other at the same time.  For example, we could have a global 
> multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal 
> footing.  Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to 
> discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS 
> folk when they went off to talk among themselves.  To my mind there is 
> no dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant 
> exchange without equal footing.
>
> I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on 
> an equal footing the better.  But the realist in me realizes that we 
> aren't there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct 
> democracy in my lifetime.  That is why I indicate that in those cases, 
> where the final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it 
> "may be assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these 
> decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for 
> their decisions and the implementations."  Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.
>
> The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we 
> obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in 
> various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to
> particular cases   The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking
> about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy 
> or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture 
> design in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or 
> the ITU on telephone numbers.  The point is that as much as possible 
> the discussion leading up to the actual decisions, including the 
> recommendation of solutions, it should be multistakeholder.  And in as 
> many cases as possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.
>
> As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people 
> neutral in that respect.  I find it works well for me both in 
> explaining things, in studying things and in modeling various real 
> life scenarios and in tactical thinking for advocacy.
>
> Your mileage may vary.
>
> 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 kichango at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 10:59:00 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 14:59:00 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-tkRy3rvDpgTkgUYxN357E6DV68q_fcmC6WHGorRkOJA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>  And I
> think that many different groups can be on an equal footing with each
> other at the same time.  For example, we could have a global
> multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal
> footing.  Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to
> discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk
> when they went off to talk among themselves.


While I understand and would agree to this at a theoretical level, I
contend that in fact governments know much more about being on "equal
footing" when it come to their deliberative procedures than CS among
themselves. Because "equal footing" has long been institutionalized for
governments in multilateral dealings, and they have clear protocols to
achieve that.

In CS we hardly have any institutional basis for that, and things may vary
a lot from one individual to another. For instance, I've seen imbalances
between professional CS folks and the self-volunteering ones with no CSO
job or  affiliation to back up their engagement. Individuals among the
former can sometimes be overbearing in terms of taking things in their
hands (which is not a bad thing in itself) but who only know to listen to
themselves and their direct peers (the ones with CSO affiliation.) Another
gap is more cultural in a sense that people tend to listen more to other
people who either are as vocal as themselves or whom they feel culturally
closer to in the ways they use the language as well as the basic cultural
beliefs they share, etc. All those may seem little things, but they lead to
some people being more quickly dismissed than others. In any case, they are
meaningful to humans (and if you, i.e. anyone out there, don't know it then
you probably are on the commanding side) and they make or brake the spirit
of cooperation.

Mawaki
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/7304bc82/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Sun Jul 27 11:04:21 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:04:21 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
	<53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
	<097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
"michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good
> in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally
> good for the foxes...

Equal footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to
escape?

SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)

On a more serious note, how should the following be classified?

During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document, the
UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears to
the proposal to include a reference to the civil society WSIS
declaration alongside the governmental one.

Is that an example of lack of equal footing? Or lack of equal feet
within an equal footing context?

Some precise definitions would be important here I think.

Greetings,
Norbert

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:48 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance]
> Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition
> process
> 
> 
> Indeed the term 'equal footing' merits some attention and analysis,
> as the NetMundial outcome document exhorts us to do.
> 
> The problem of course is not with the term 'equal footing' itself,
> but we need to look closely at 'equal footing for whom' - something
> which this email will try to do
> 
> Democracy's basic idea is of equality of all people, or, in other
> worlds, all people on equal footing. There is simply no democracy
> without that.
> 
> Are we calling for equal footing for all people here? Or, since
> people live and see themselves socially as belonging in various
> social groups, an equal footing of social groups of people?
> ( geographic groups like neighbourhoods, villages, towns and nations,
> or identity based ones - which may or may not overlap with geo-based
> - like gender, ethnicity, class, etc).
> 
> No, MS-ism does not call for equal footing for people or for social
> groups of people? It calls for equal footing for stakeholders?
> 
> There would be no problem if stakeholders were just like natural
> social groups of natural people. But that is not the fact. And to the
> extent that stakeholders, as seen by MSism we find in practice, are
> *not* just natural groups of natural people, the equal footing of
> stakeholders rather than being equal footing of people and their
> natural groups, militates against it. It is in this way that
> equal-footing MSism subverts democracy, that ideology and practice of
> equal footing of all people...
> 
> Where does the term stakeholder deviate from people or their natural
> groups? It is easy to see - when the (big) capital owner and the
> (privileged) expert is brought it as special political invitees, or
> in fact political overlords. Both the epithets, 'big' and
> 'privileged', fully apply and are basic to this analysis.
> 
> Mark it, the (big) capital owner - hereon, simply business, ,  and the
> (privileged) expert - hereon, simply the tech community - come in a
> second role, for a second political dip, apart from in any case being
> people (the few that they are) in normal people's political
> configurations, either as civil society or as represented by
> democratic governments. In this second role, they claim special
> characteristics whereby they should be given extra political power -
> respectively, owning productive resources, and possessing special
> knowledge (another productive resource in fact). In various MS
> meetings, these two groups openly quote these special characteristics
> for claiming extra, second dip, political power, through an extra
> seat at the policy table.
> 
> Now not only is the 'big business' and 'the special expert' coming in
> for the second time to partake political power whereby some people
> will have twice the political role and power as others, it is much
> much more pernicious. The extremely few - in fact minuscule - number
> of big business and special expert claim the same amount of political
> space in MSism as the whole of civil society and the whole of
> (however imperfect) government-as-people's-representative group. The
> proportion on two sides reminds one of the 1 percent and 99 percent
> equation of the occupy movement. Well, MSism is your reverse occupy
> movement, where the big business is trying to occupy the democracy
> space, but lets not digress....
> 
> One cannot separate nice theoretical sentences about MSism from its
> actual practice - which, as we have seen till now, is strictly based
> on four way equal division of political space among very unequal
> actors - business, tech community, gov and civil society.
> 
> It is evident that in the name of equal footing of stakeholders, what
> is being done is that the equal footing among people, and their
> natural groups, is being completely upstaged. That is how and where
> MSism upstages democracy, and all real conceptions of equality....
> 
> You want equality of 'real stakeholders', call the next NetMundial
> and the next IGF MAG with say, and I am trying to be very
> conservative here, 10 stakeholder groups, *on an equal footing*. Give
> one place each to global reps of women's groups, ethnic minorities,
> disabled community, trade unions, slum residents associations,
> farmers groups ..... we can make 8 stakeholder categories like this.
> We will then leave one for business associations - to be filled in
> equally by big business reps and reps of small businesses. We can
> have, if you will,  another single category of experts with half of
> them technical experts and half relevant social experts.
> 
> This will be much closer to equal footing of stakeholders as
> promoting rather than upstaging the democratic ideal of equal footing
> of all people and their natural groups. Any takes for this model of
> MSism..
> 
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday 27 July 2014 06:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> > On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> >> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF 
> >> will never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. 
> >> Anyways, so much has been said on this but it still remains
> >> politically incorrect.
> >
> > I tend to disagree.  For me it is  a critical phrase in the
> > definition for the very reason that I beleive it has been
> > misappropriated by a few governments and misunderstood by many.  It
> > is such a simple term, with a simple metaphoric meaning, that I do
> > intend to keep on using it.  And I think that many different groups
> > can be on an equal footing with each other at the same time.  For
> > example, we could have a global multistakeholder event like the
> > NETmundial were everyone is on equal footing.  Yet, when the
> > governments went off amongst themselves to discuss things, they
> > were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk when they went
> > off to talk among themselves.  To my mind there is no dialogue
> > without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant exchange
> > without equal footing.
> >
> > I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made
> > on an equal footing the better.  But the realist in me realizes
> > that we aren't there yet, just like we probably won't reach global
> > direct democracy in my lifetime.  That is why I indicate that in
> > those cases, where the final decision making is not done on a equal
> > footing, it "may be assigned to a single stakeholder group" and
> > that "these decision makers are always accountable to all of the
> > stakeholders for their decisions and the implementations."
> > Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.
> >
> > The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we 
> > obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments
> > in various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral
> > as to particular cases   The decsions maker may also be the IESG,
> > when talking about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking
> > about a gTLD policy or the coder when talking about a new bit of
> > system architecture design in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or
> > WIPO on property, or the ITU on telephone numbers.  The point is
> > that as much as possible the discussion leading up to the actual
> > decisions, including the recommendation of solutions, it should be
> > multistakeholder.  And in as many cases as possible we should aim
> > for equal footing even at the decision level.
> >
> > As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to
> > people neutral in that respect.  I find it works well for me both
> > in explaining things, in studying things and in modeling various
> > real life scenarios and in tactical thinking for advocacy.
> >
> > Your mileage may vary.
> >
> > 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sun Jul 27 11:06:59 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:06:59 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
 <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1350714862.8397.1406473619806.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f14>

 

 

IMHO "Equal Footing" has also to be considered in the context of "power.

 

CS sitting face to Google or any of the handfull other Internet giants, may obtain the same time for speaking and get the ability to participate in the debate that aims to formulate recommendations on policy making. But when it commes to decision-taking, the actual power is determinating !

 

Therefore, CS empowerment -which is multi-dimensional- is a prerequisite for any consideration of "equal footing" ! Conversely, without power "eqal footing" is either a "mirage" or a hoax ! Just like "multistakeholderism".

 

Regards

 

Jean-Louis Fullsack



  




> Message du 27/07/14 16:46
> De : "michael gurstein" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'parminder'" 

> Copie à : 
> Objet : RE: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally good for the foxes...
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:48 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
> 
> Indeed the term 'equal footing' merits some attention and analysis, as the NetMundial outcome document exhorts us to do.
> 
> The problem of course is not with the term 'equal footing' itself, but we need to look closely at 'equal footing for whom' - something which this email will try to do
> 
> Democracy's basic idea is of equality of all people, or, in other worlds, all people on equal footing. There is simply no democracy without that.
> 
> Are we calling for equal footing for all people here? Or, since people live and see themselves socially as belonging in various social groups, an equal footing of social groups of people? ( geographic groups like neighbourhoods, villages, towns and nations, or identity based ones - which may or may not overlap with geo-based - like gender, ethnicity, class, etc).
> 
> No, MS-ism does not call for equal footing for people or for social groups of people? It calls for equal footing for stakeholders?
> 
> There would be no problem if stakeholders were just like natural social groups of natural people. But that is not the fact. And to the extent that stakeholders, as seen by MSism we find in practice, are *not* just natural groups of natural people, the equal footing of stakeholders rather than being equal footing of people and their natural groups, militates against it. It is in this way that equal-footing MSism subverts democracy, that ideology and practice of equal footing of all people...
> 
> Where does the term stakeholder deviate from people or their natural groups? It is easy to see - when the (big) capital owner and the
> (privileged) expert is brought it as special political invitees, or in fact political overlords. Both the epithets, 'big' and 'privileged', fully apply and are basic to this analysis.
> 
> Mark it, the (big) capital owner - hereon, simply business, , and the
> (privileged) expert - hereon, simply the tech community - come in a second role, for a second political dip, apart from in any case being people (the few that they are) in normal people's political configurations, either as civil society or as represented by democratic governments. In this second role, they claim special characteristics whereby they should be given extra political power - respectively, owning productive resources, and possessing special knowledge (another productive resource in fact). In various MS meetings, these two groups openly quote these special characteristics for claiming extra, second dip, political power, through an extra seat at the policy table.
> 
> Now not only is the 'big business' and 'the special expert' coming in for the second time to partake political power whereby some people will have twice the political role and power as others, it is much much more pernicious. The extremely few - in fact minuscule - number of big business and special expert claim the same amount of political space in MSism as the whole of civil society and the whole of (however imperfect) government-as-people's-representative group. The proportion on two sides reminds one of the 1 percent and 99 percent equation of the occupy movement. Well, MSism is your reverse occupy movement, where the big business is trying to occupy the democracy space, but lets not digress....
> 
> One cannot separate nice theoretical sentences about MSism from its actual practice - which, as we have seen till now, is strictly based on four way equal division of political space among very unequal actors - business, tech community, gov and civil society.
> 
> It is evident that in the name of equal footing of stakeholders, what is being done is that the equal footing among people, and their natural groups, is being completely upstaged. That is how and where MSism upstages democracy, and all real conceptions of equality....
> 
> You want equality of 'real stakeholders', call the next NetMundial and the next IGF MAG with say, and I am trying to be very conservative here,
> 10 stakeholder groups, *on an equal footing*. Give one place each to global reps of women's groups, ethnic minorities, disabled community, trade unions, slum residents associations, farmers groups ..... we can make 8 stakeholder categories like this. We will then leave one for business associations - to be filled in equally by big business reps and reps of small businesses. We can have, if you will, another single category of experts with half of them technical experts and half relevant social experts.
> 
> This will be much closer to equal footing of stakeholders as promoting rather than upstaging the democratic ideal of equal footing of all people and their natural groups. Any takes for this model of MSism..
> 
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday 27 July 2014 06:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> > On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> >> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF 
> >> will never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. 
> >> Anyways, so much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.
> >
> > I tend to disagree. For me it is a critical phrase in the definition 
> > for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a 
> > few governments and misunderstood by many. It is such a simple term, 
> > with a simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using 
> > it. And I think that many different groups can be on an equal footing 
> > with each other at the same time. For example, we could have a global 
> > multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal 
> > footing. Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to 
> > discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS 
> > folk when they went off to talk among themselves. To my mind there is 
> > no dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant 
> > exchange without equal footing.
> >
> > I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on 
> > an equal footing the better. But the realist in me realizes that we 
> > aren't there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct 
> > democracy in my lifetime. That is why I indicate that in those cases, 
> > where the final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it 
> > "may be assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these 
> > decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for 
> > their decisions and the implementations." Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.
> >
> > The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we 
> > obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in 
> > various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to
> > particular cases The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking
> > about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy 
> > or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture 
> > design in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or 
> > the ITU on telephone numbers. The point is that as much as possible 
> > the discussion leading up to the actual decisions, including the 
> > recommendation of solutions, it should be multistakeholder. And in as 
> > many cases as possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.
> >
> > As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people 
> > neutral in that respect. I find it works well for me both in 
> > explaining things, in studying things and in modeling various real 
> > life scenarios and in tactical thinking for advocacy.
> >
> > Your mileage may vary.
> >
> > 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/fa0707b6/attachment.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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sun Jul 27 11:26:20 2014
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:26:20 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
 <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
 <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
Message-ID: <1283368670.8753.1406474780743.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f14>

A very good reminder, Norbert !

 

I remember, during phase 1 of WSIS Adama Samassekou claiming that the CS Declaration will be an "official WSIS document" (= "equal footing") despite the "clash" of CS having taken the desision to carry out its own declaration.

 

But in fact you'll not find the CS Declaration among official WSIS outcome documents on any ITU WSIS Site.


Jean-Louis Fullsack



 

 

 

> Message du 27/07/14 17:11
> De : "Norbert Bollow" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
> "michael gurstein"  wrote:
> 
> > In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good
> > in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally
> > good for the foxes...
> 
> Equal footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to
> escape?
> 
> SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)
> 
> On a more serious note, how should the following be classified?
> 
> During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document, the
> UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears to
> the proposal to include a reference to the civil society WSIS
> declaration alongside the governmental one.
> 
> Is that an example of lack of equal footing? Or lack of equal feet
> within an equal footing context?
> 
> Some precise definitions would be important here I think.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
> > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:48 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance]
> > Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition
> > process
> > 
> > 
> > Indeed the term 'equal footing' merits some attention and analysis,
> > as the NetMundial outcome document exhorts us to do.
> > 
> > The problem of course is not with the term 'equal footing' itself,
> > but we need to look closely at 'equal footing for whom' - something
> > which this email will try to do
> > 
> > Democracy's basic idea is of equality of all people, or, in other
> > worlds, all people on equal footing. There is simply no democracy
> > without that.
> > 
> > Are we calling for equal footing for all people here? Or, since
> > people live and see themselves socially as belonging in various
> > social groups, an equal footing of social groups of people?
> > ( geographic groups like neighbourhoods, villages, towns and nations,
> > or identity based ones - which may or may not overlap with geo-based
> > - like gender, ethnicity, class, etc).
> > 
> > No, MS-ism does not call for equal footing for people or for social
> > groups of people? It calls for equal footing for stakeholders?
> > 
> > There would be no problem if stakeholders were just like natural
> > social groups of natural people. But that is not the fact. And to the
> > extent that stakeholders, as seen by MSism we find in practice, are
> > *not* just natural groups of natural people, the equal footing of
> > stakeholders rather than being equal footing of people and their
> > natural groups, militates against it. It is in this way that
> > equal-footing MSism subverts democracy, that ideology and practice of
> > equal footing of all people...
> > 
> > Where does the term stakeholder deviate from people or their natural
> > groups? It is easy to see - when the (big) capital owner and the
> > (privileged) expert is brought it as special political invitees, or
> > in fact political overlords. Both the epithets, 'big' and
> > 'privileged', fully apply and are basic to this analysis.
> > 
> > Mark it, the (big) capital owner - hereon, simply business, , and the
> > (privileged) expert - hereon, simply the tech community - come in a
> > second role, for a second political dip, apart from in any case being
> > people (the few that they are) in normal people's political
> > configurations, either as civil society or as represented by
> > democratic governments. In this second role, they claim special
> > characteristics whereby they should be given extra political power -
> > respectively, owning productive resources, and possessing special
> > knowledge (another productive resource in fact). In various MS
> > meetings, these two groups openly quote these special characteristics
> > for claiming extra, second dip, political power, through an extra
> > seat at the policy table.
> > 
> > Now not only is the 'big business' and 'the special expert' coming in
> > for the second time to partake political power whereby some people
> > will have twice the political role and power as others, it is much
> > much more pernicious. The extremely few - in fact minuscule - number
> > of big business and special expert claim the same amount of political
> > space in MSism as the whole of civil society and the whole of
> > (however imperfect) government-as-people's-representative group. The
> > proportion on two sides reminds one of the 1 percent and 99 percent
> > equation of the occupy movement. Well, MSism is your reverse occupy
> > movement, where the big business is trying to occupy the democracy
> > space, but lets not digress....
> > 
> > One cannot separate nice theoretical sentences about MSism from its
> > actual practice - which, as we have seen till now, is strictly based
> > on four way equal division of political space among very unequal
> > actors - business, tech community, gov and civil society.
> > 
> > It is evident that in the name of equal footing of stakeholders, what
> > is being done is that the equal footing among people, and their
> > natural groups, is being completely upstaged. That is how and where
> > MSism upstages democracy, and all real conceptions of equality....
> > 
> > You want equality of 'real stakeholders', call the next NetMundial
> > and the next IGF MAG with say, and I am trying to be very
> > conservative here, 10 stakeholder groups, *on an equal footing*. Give
> > one place each to global reps of women's groups, ethnic minorities,
> > disabled community, trade unions, slum residents associations,
> > farmers groups ..... we can make 8 stakeholder categories like this.
> > We will then leave one for business associations - to be filled in
> > equally by big business reps and reps of small businesses. We can
> > have, if you will, another single category of experts with half of
> > them technical experts and half relevant social experts.
> > 
> > This will be much closer to equal footing of stakeholders as
> > promoting rather than upstaging the democratic ideal of equal footing
> > of all people and their natural groups. Any takes for this model of
> > MSism..
> > 
> > 
> > parminder
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sunday 27 July 2014 06:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> > >
> > > On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> > >> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF 
> > >> will never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. 
> > >> Anyways, so much has been said on this but it still remains
> > >> politically incorrect.
> > >
> > > I tend to disagree. For me it is a critical phrase in the
> > > definition for the very reason that I beleive it has been
> > > misappropriated by a few governments and misunderstood by many. It
> > > is such a simple term, with a simple metaphoric meaning, that I do
> > > intend to keep on using it. And I think that many different groups
> > > can be on an equal footing with each other at the same time. For
> > > example, we could have a global multistakeholder event like the
> > > NETmundial were everyone is on equal footing. Yet, when the
> > > governments went off amongst themselves to discuss things, they
> > > were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk when they went
> > > off to talk among themselves. To my mind there is no dialogue
> > > without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant exchange
> > > without equal footing.
> > >
> > > I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made
> > > on an equal footing the better. But the realist in me realizes
> > > that we aren't there yet, just like we probably won't reach global
> > > direct democracy in my lifetime. That is why I indicate that in
> > > those cases, where the final decision making is not done on a equal
> > > footing, it "may be assigned to a single stakeholder group" and
> > > that "these decision makers are always accountable to all of the
> > > stakeholders for their decisions and the implementations."
> > > Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.
> > >
> > > The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we 
> > > obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments
> > > in various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral
> > > as to particular cases The decsions maker may also be the IESG,
> > > when talking about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking
> > > about a gTLD policy or the coder when talking about a new bit of
> > > system architecture design in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or
> > > WIPO on property, or the ITU on telephone numbers. The point is
> > > that as much as possible the discussion leading up to the actual
> > > decisions, including the recommendation of solutions, it should be
> > > multistakeholder. And in as many cases as possible we should aim
> > > for equal footing even at the decision level.
> > >
> > > As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to
> > > people neutral in that respect. I find it works well for me both
> > > in explaining things, in studying things and in modeling various
> > > real life scenarios and in tactical thinking for advocacy.
> > >
> > > Your mileage may vary.
> > >
> > > 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/c39df3a7/attachment.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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 11:57:35 2014
From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:57:35 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <86F7E10D-4906-4210-9CDC-E0B4ABA3A842@gmail.com>

>From Avri's definition to Avri's new comment, I see quite a stretch! Thanks to that comment, the room for consensus with the other definition by Parminder is suddenly getting much smaller than what it seemed. The suggested definition was an interesting step forward in terms of trying to elaborate a CS consensus. But a so-called equal footing decision making at the public policy level for all stakeholders is a no go from my end.

I respect Avri's opinion about her tending to think that the more decisions are actually made on equal footing the better. But I fully disagree on both principles in terms of political science or political philosophy levels, and pragmatic level. Reality has brought me to see that this equal footing decision making is the most poisonous and insidious thing I can think of when it comes to public interest.

Moreover the absence of clarity about roles and definitions can only maintain a dangerous state of governance. Pilotage à vue, or governance with a géométrie variable can only favor asymmetry of diverse kinds. Does that serve best the public interest? Will the "Just ask and we will let you know later on, who is in charge on this one?" Aren't we done with that thinking?


JC


Le 27 juil. 2014 à 14:32, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 
> 
> On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF will
>> never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. Anyways, so
>> much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.
> 
> 
> I tend to disagree.  For me it is  a critical phrase in the definition
> for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a few
> governments and misunderstood by many.  It is such a simple term, with a
> simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using it.  And I
> think that many different groups can be on an equal footing with each
> other at the same time.  For example, we could have a global
> multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal
> footing.  Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to
> discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS folk
> when they went off to talk among themselves.  To my mind there is no
> dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant
> exchange without equal footing.
> 
> I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on an
> equal footing the better.  But the realist in me realizes that we aren't
> there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct democracy in
> my lifetime.  That is why I indicate that in those cases, where the
> final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it "may be
> assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these decision makers
> are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions
> and the implementations."  Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.
> 
> The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we
> obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in
> various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to
> particular cases   The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking
> about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy
> or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture design
> in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or the ITU on
> telephone numbers.  The point is that as much as possible the discussion
> leading up to the actual decisions, including the recommendation of
> solutions, it should be multistakeholder.  And in as many cases as
> possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.
> 
> As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people
> neutral in that respect.  I find it works well for me both in explaining
> things, in studying things and in modeling various real life scenarios
> and in tactical thinking for advocacy.
> 
> Your mileage may vary.
> 
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/2db24af1/attachment.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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Sun Jul 27 12:06:14 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:06:14 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net> <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C89F3E97-83CA-4636-9BCA-FC59B91A9196@theglobaljournal.net>

Maybe in Wonderland this 'equal footing decision making" sounds good, but in constitutional rights theory, lawmaking reasoning or management white collar thinking,  it looks ugly. In mouth as well.

I would love to see how this 'equal footing' thinking would work in a corporation. Send me the picture of the shareholders, or the CEO, during the equal-footing board meeting.

JC

Le 27 juil. 2014 à 16:44, michael gurstein a écrit :

> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally good for the foxes...
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:48 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
> 
> Indeed the term 'equal footing' merits some attention and analysis, as the NetMundial outcome document exhorts us to do.
> 
> The problem of course is not with the term 'equal footing' itself, but we need to look closely at 'equal footing for whom' - something which this email will try to do
> 
> Democracy's basic idea is of equality of all people, or, in other worlds, all people on equal footing. There is simply no democracy without that.
> 
> Are we calling for equal footing for all people here? Or, since people live and see themselves socially as belonging in various social groups, an equal footing of social groups of people? ( geographic groups like neighbourhoods, villages, towns and nations, or identity based ones - which may or may not overlap with geo-based - like gender, ethnicity, class, etc).
> 
> No, MS-ism does not call for equal footing for people or for social groups of people? It calls for equal footing for stakeholders?
> 
> There would be no problem if stakeholders were just like natural social groups of natural people. But that is not the fact. And to the extent that stakeholders, as seen by MSism we find in practice, are *not* just natural groups of natural people, the equal footing of stakeholders rather than being equal footing of people and their natural groups, militates against it. It is in this way that equal-footing MSism subverts democracy, that ideology and practice of equal footing of all people...
> 
> Where does the term stakeholder deviate from people or their natural groups? It is easy to see - when the (big) capital owner and the
> (privileged) expert is brought it as special political invitees, or in fact political overlords. Both the epithets, 'big' and 'privileged', fully apply and are basic to this analysis.
> 
> Mark it, the (big) capital owner - hereon, simply business, ,  and the
> (privileged) expert - hereon, simply the tech community - come in a second role, for a second political dip, apart from in any case being people (the few that they are) in normal people's political configurations, either as civil society or as represented by democratic governments. In this second role, they claim special characteristics whereby they should be given extra political power - respectively, owning productive resources, and possessing special knowledge (another productive resource in fact). In various MS meetings, these two groups openly quote these special characteristics for claiming extra, second dip, political power, through an extra seat at the policy table.
> 
> Now not only is the 'big business' and 'the special expert' coming in for the second time to partake political power whereby some people will have twice the political role and power as others, it is much much more pernicious. The extremely few - in fact minuscule - number of big business and special expert claim the same amount of political space in MSism as the whole of civil society and the whole of (however imperfect) government-as-people's-representative group. The proportion on two sides reminds one of the 1 percent and 99 percent equation of the occupy movement. Well, MSism is your reverse occupy movement, where the big business is trying to occupy the democracy space, but lets not digress....
> 
> One cannot separate nice theoretical sentences about MSism from its actual practice - which, as we have seen till now, is strictly based on four way equal division of political space among very unequal actors - business, tech community, gov and civil society.
> 
> It is evident that in the name of equal footing of stakeholders, what is being done is that the equal footing among people, and their natural groups, is being completely upstaged. That is how and where MSism upstages democracy, and all real conceptions of equality....
> 
> You want equality of 'real stakeholders', call the next NetMundial and the next IGF MAG with say, and I am trying to be very conservative here,
> 10 stakeholder groups, *on an equal footing*. Give one place each to global reps of women's groups, ethnic minorities, disabled community, trade unions, slum residents associations, farmers groups ..... we can make 8 stakeholder categories like this. We will then leave one for business associations - to be filled in equally by big business reps and reps of small businesses. We can have, if you will,  another single category of experts with half of them technical experts and half relevant social experts.
> 
> This will be much closer to equal footing of stakeholders as promoting rather than upstaging the democratic ideal of equal footing of all people and their natural groups. Any takes for this model of MSism..
> 
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday 27 July 2014 06:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> On 27-Jul-14 11:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>>> somehow remain very uncomfortable with the term equal footing. EF 
>>> will never give balance in MSism and decision making situations. 
>>> Anyways, so much has been said on this but it still remains politically incorrect.
>> 
>> I tend to disagree.  For me it is  a critical phrase in the definition 
>> for the very reason that I beleive it has been misappropriated by a 
>> few governments and misunderstood by many.  It is such a simple term, 
>> with a simple metaphoric meaning, that I do intend to keep on using 
>> it.  And I think that many different groups can be on an equal footing 
>> with each other at the same time.  For example, we could have a global 
>> multistakeholder event like the NETmundial were everyone is on equal 
>> footing.  Yet, when the governments went off amongst themselves to 
>> discuss things, they were also on an equal footing, as were the CS 
>> folk when they went off to talk among themselves.  To my mind there is 
>> no dialogue without equal footing, it becomes more command/supplicant 
>> exchange without equal footing.
>> 
>> I personally think that the more decisions that are actually made on 
>> an equal footing the better.  But the realist in me realizes that we 
>> aren't there yet, just like we probably won't reach global direct 
>> democracy in my lifetime.  That is why I indicate that in those cases, 
>> where the final decision making is not done on a equal footing, it 
>> "may be assigned to a single stakeholder group" and that "these 
>> decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for 
>> their decisions and the implementations."  Implementation is rarely multistakeholder.
>> 
>> The assigned decision makers for some things may be governments, we 
>> obviously have different viewpoints on the utility of governments in 
>> various situations, but I think the definition should be neutral as to
>> particular cases   The decsions maker may also be the IESG, when talking
>> about an IP protocol, the ICANN Board when talking about a gTLD policy 
>> or the coder when talking about a new bit of system architecture 
>> design in a multistakeholder committee, etc. Or WIPO on property, or 
>> the ITU on telephone numbers.  The point is that as much as possible 
>> the discussion leading up to the actual decisions, including the 
>> recommendation of solutions, it should be multistakeholder.  And in as 
>> many cases as possible we should aim for equal footing even at the decision level.
>> 
>> As I said I tried to make the definition I use to explain it to people 
>> neutral in that respect.  I find it works well for me both in 
>> explaining things, in studying things and in modeling various real 
>> life scenarios and in tactical thinking for advocacy.
>> 
>> Your mileage may vary.
>> 
>> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/aad7cd2a/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 12:15:02 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:15:02 -0500
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>

All,


On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
> "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good
>> in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally
>> good for the foxes...
>
> Equal footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to
> escape?
>
> SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)
>
> On a more serious note, how should the following be classified?
>
> During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document, the
> UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears to
> the proposal to include a reference to the civil society WSIS
> declaration alongside the governmental one.


We have to keep in mind that the "MS" IG processes which emanate from
Geneva are not the same sort of MSism that built and developed the
Internet for the last 3+ decades.  Those are the models we should be
using, NOT the ones that come from Geneva.




-- 
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 Jul 27 13:58:45 2014
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:58:45 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill> <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYprCqCTK5hNBwSpMnAVshKJJjSPY3OMtUa+pouvfdrSnA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 6:15 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> We have to keep in mind that the "MS" IG processes which emanate from
> Geneva are not the same sort of MSism that built and developed the
> Internet for the last 3+ decades.  Those are the models we should be
> using, NOT the ones that come from Geneva.
>
> The recent Strickling's speech in Washington DC is a good sample of the
unistakeholder model practiced in the DOC.
Cheers. Louis


> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/af33cb9c/attachment.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 drc at virtualized.org  Sun Jul 27 14:43:14 2014
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:43:14 -0700
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net> <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org> <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org>

Parminder,

On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:36 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> I dont see why we should not already be seeking such a body

No one is stopping you (or whoever 'we' is in the above). You (or whoever 'we' is in the above) just need to come up with something that is at least as trusted by resolver operators of the world as the current system, then convince those operators to make use of that zone maintenance/signing/distribution system.

My suspicion is that this will be a hard sell for a variety of reasons, however the first step is to actually come up with a proposal that resolver operators (not politicians) might look at and decide if they want to play along.

> In fact we now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from the root file.

As far as I am aware, despite that court decision, .IR remains in the root and nothing has changed with respect to its registration information.

> IANA transition issue is supposed to be basically about these huge current and impending problems.

My understanding of the transition of the stewardship of IANA is that it is about removing NTIA from its current role. That seems to be a more focused scope that what you believe the IANA transition is supposed to be about. I'm unsure where you derived your view of the IANA transition, but you might want to reread http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.

> The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out right now in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil society should sit up and reflect about... 

As far as I can tell, NTIA and the various folks involved in the transition appear to be are quite serious about wanting to remove NTIA from its current role. I'm unsure why you would consider it a 'sham' unless of course you're accusing the transition participants of not pursuing your personal view of the transition. If that is indeed the case, then I suspect the problem does not really lie with them.

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/52194503/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 27 14:58:34 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:58:34 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill> <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>

McTim,

You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
from, the ITU/WSIS breed.
First of all, I'd contend that the constituency-based approach at ICANN was
and still is an instance of MSism. Don't take my word for it; as soon as
the WSIS process made the term 'multistakeholder' fashionable, we've heard
it a lot reclaimed in ICANN's ranks. So much so that they have now
re-devised their old constituency groupings into stakeholder groupings.
However, as far as I know, ICANN only dealt with its direct stakeholders as
organization, that is, the domain name industry, the technical community
(security and stability aspects of the net), and the business, particularly
via the lenses of IPR issues.

Yes, I'm aware of the very early failed attempt at direct voting by end
users for their reps on the board of directors, but after that it took many
years for the Noncommercial user constituency to be recognized (only as
part of the GNSO community) and for ICANN itself to get the ALAC structures
going. (Please feel free to correct me or complete if I'm missing any major
aspect of things here; I'm just summarizing on the flight.) At the end of
the day, constituencies and stakeholders at ICANN have also had to be
divided into separate groupings with an identity label -- and so it was
before WSIS started.

Was that then a perfect instance of MSism which ITU-WSIS came to spoil? I
just once to have this clarified once for all as to what you exactly mean
everything you point to ITU as having put the worm in the fruit (or
whatever colloquialism I'm missing to remember correctly here) by
delineating stakeholder groups as it did during the WSIS process.

Beyond that, I'd also appreciate if you can give references or pointers to
any clear formulations (e.g, RFC or excerpt of charter, of rules and
operating procedures of relevant groups, or other informal text that may
have served for guidance in implementing MSism, etc.) of instances of MSism
you deem successful or which should be taken as reference (such as any
version of "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+
decades.") My apologies if that has been done before, as I suspect it could
have.

Thanks and cheers,

Mawaki


On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
> > "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good
> >> in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally
> >> good for the foxes...
> >
> > Equal footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to
> > escape?
> >
> > SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)
> >
> > On a more serious note, how should the following be classified?
> >
> > During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document, the
> > UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears to
> > the proposal to include a reference to the civil society WSIS
> > declaration alongside the governmental one.
>
>
> We have to keep in mind that the "MS" IG processes which emanate from
> Geneva are not the same sort of MSism that built and developed the
> Internet for the last 3+ decades.  Those are the models we should be
> using, NOT the ones that come from Geneva.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/9b2e2352/attachment.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Jul 27 16:22:25 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 06:22:25 +1000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net> <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill> <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba>

Trying to go back to the original discussion -

I hear all the reasons why we can’t avoid discussing equal footing. But the beginning here was the idea of a consensual statement on multistakeholderism – I think we should work on that, with as good a reference to equal footing as we can agree on at this stage, rather than divert to trying to develop a common position on what equal footing means.

Because I think we can get somewhere on a multistakeholderism statement. 

Ian

From: Mawaki Chango 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:58 AM
To: Internet Governance ; McTim 
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process


McTim,

You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only from, the ITU/WSIS breed.
First of all, I'd contend that the constituency-based approach at ICANN was and still is an instance of MSism. Don't take my word for it; as soon as the WSIS process made the term 'multistakeholder' fashionable, we've heard it a lot reclaimed in ICANN's ranks. So much so that they have now re-devised their old constituency groupings into stakeholder groupings. However, as far as I know, ICANN only dealt with its direct stakeholders as organization, that is, the domain name industry, the technical community (security and stability aspects of the net), and the business, particularly via the lenses of IPR issues. 

Yes, I'm aware of the very early failed attempt at direct voting by end users for their reps on the board of directors, but after that it took many years for the Noncommercial user constituency to be recognized (only as part of the GNSO community) and for ICANN itself to get the ALAC structures going. (Please feel free to correct me or complete if I'm missing any major aspect of things here; I'm just summarizing on the flight.) At the end of the day, constituencies and stakeholders at ICANN have also had to be divided into separate groupings with an identity label -- and so it was before WSIS started.

Was that then a perfect instance of MSism which ITU-WSIS came to spoil? I just once to have this clarified once for all as to what you exactly mean everything you point to ITU as having put the worm in the fruit (or whatever colloquialism I'm missing to remember correctly here) by delineating stakeholder groups as it did during the WSIS process. 

Beyond that, I'd also appreciate if you can give references or pointers to any clear formulations (e.g, RFC or excerpt of charter, of rules and operating procedures of relevant groups, or other informal text that may have served for guidance in implementing MSism, etc.) of instances of MSism you deem successful or which should be taken as reference (such as any version of "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+ decades.") My apologies if that has been done before, as I suspect it could have.


Thanks and cheers,


Mawaki



On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

  All,



  On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
  > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
  > "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
  >
  >> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good
  >> in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally
  >> good for the foxes...
  >
  > Equal footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to
  > escape?
  >
  > SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)
  >
  > On a more serious note, how should the following be classified?
  >
  > During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document, the
  > UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears to
  > the proposal to include a reference to the civil society WSIS
  > declaration alongside the governmental one.



  We have to keep in mind that the "MS" IG processes which emanate from
  Geneva are not the same sort of MSism that built and developed the
  Internet for the last 3+ decades.  Those are the models we should be
  using, NOT the ones that come from Geneva.




  --
  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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/dbf657e5/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Sun Jul 27 17:27:05 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 23:27:05 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12YSsoquPMYzaHaopsF3ODsCWxnhH=R_cL3oELDDmEYXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <CADFgh12YSsoquPMYzaHaopsF3ODsCWxnhH=R_cL3oELDDmEYXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53D56EA9.70402@acm.org>



On 27-Jul-14 15:09, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
> Avri, how will this "equal footing" within stakeholder groups, as was
> seen in NetMundial include actors who are not physically present?

In my thinking, remote participation has to be real.  I am not sure the
technology is in place yet, and it is obvioius that not everyone has the
access or bandwidth.  So that is were more development and capacity
building is needed to meet the goal of equal footing and were
intermediate hub-like solutions may offer some help.

> 
> Or we talking process  or events or both? Are we talking  "tacking
> Internet issues on global level" or are we including regional and
> national levels? 

I tend to think that the defniton can work at the regional level, though
I am more thinking global level.

At the national level, there is a real notion of citizenship that needs
to be taken into account especially in countries where people have a
'real' vote, for some definition of representative democracy and real
voting.  I still believe a multistakeholder model is necessary, but i
think it comes out differently and needs a definition that take
citizenship into account.

> 
> Does anyone have  an "equal footing" example at country levels?

I think Switzerland comes closer than many with.

> 
> ... Still thinking..

me too.

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 nb at bollow.ch  Sun Jul 27 18:30:20 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:30:20 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <53D56EA9.70402@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
	<CADFgh12YSsoquPMYzaHaopsF3ODsCWxnhH=R_cL3oELDDmEYXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D56EA9.70402@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20140728003020.431e83c8@quill>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> At the national level, there is a real notion of citizenship that
> needs to be taken into account especially in countries where people
> have a 'real' vote, for some definition of representative democracy
> and real voting.  I still believe a multistakeholder model is
> necessary, but i think it comes out differently and needs a
> definition that take citizenship into account.
> 
> > Does anyone have an "equal footing" example at country levels?
> 
> I think Switzerland comes closer than many with.

It may be worth noting that to the (not insignificant) extent that
multistakeholder processes are part of the Swiss political system,
people who are not Swiss citizens are not discriminated against in
regard to full participation in those multistakeholder processes. While
presenting a passport or equivalent identification is required when
entering some of the government buildings where some of the meetings
take place, a foreign passport will be perfectly accepted.

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 fatimacambronero at gmail.com  Sun Jul 27 21:44:06 2014
From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:44:06 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGF: Call for Public Input
Message-ID: <CAHY4F=zopRdUacyhcXdUKbj6MDgTa_bM4Uxh+yaZjyEhWtpgiA@mail.gmail.com>

FYI,

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/1885-call-for-public-input


Dear IGF Community Members,

-

You may recall that the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF in its
report identified the development of tangible outcomes as a way for the IGF
to continue to perform successfully its intended role of addressing issues
related to public policy in a bottom-up, multistakeholder fashion. The
Working Group stated that "to focus discussions, the preparation process of
each IGF should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the
IGF, as part of the overall discussion.


The results of the debates on these questions, with special focus on public
policy perspectives and aimed at capacity-building, should be stated in the
outcome documentation". "The IGF Secretariat and the MAG should reach out
and continue to invite all stakeholders to be more actively involved in the
preparation of the IGF, including by identifying pertinent key policy
questions around which main sessions for the IGF will be structured."


This recommendation provides an excellent opportunity for the IGF community
to engage in the process of shaping and formulating the questions that will
guide the discussions during the various main / focus sessions. Therefore,
the IGF Secretariat is inviting the community to share its views on the
type of public policy questions that could be addressed and discussed at
the 9th Annual Internet Governance Forum meeting's main/focus sessions.


Each stakeholder is invited to submit no more than three (3) questions for
each of the following sessions:

- Policies Enabling Access, Growth and Development on the Internet

- Towards a Common Understanding of Network Neutrality

- Evolution of Internet Governance Ecosystem and the Role of the IGF

- IANA Functions: NTIA's Stewardship Transition and ICANN's Accountability
Process

- Taking Stock / Emerging Issues

Questions will be compiled and published by the Secretariat, and provided
to main session organisers as suggested discussion questions. Please note
that organisers of main / focus sessions may need to synthesize and combine
questions due to time constraints. Should a contributed policy questions
not make it into main session programming, the IGF Secretariat reminds all
interested stakeholders that questions can be asked on the day in
real-time. The deadline for submitting your questions is 4 August 2014.
Questions should be sent to discussion_questions at intgovforum.org.



-- 
*Fatima Cambronero*
Abogada-Argentina

Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
Twitter: @facambronero
Skype: fatima.cambronero
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140727/c23d75b9/attachment.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 jovank at diplomacy.edu  Mon Jul 28 07:03:03 2014
From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:03:03 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <20140728003020.431e83c8@quill>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <CADFgh12YSsoquPMYzaHaopsF3ODsCWxnhH=R_cL3oELDDmEYXQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D56EA9.70402@acm.org> <20140728003020.431e83c8@quill>
Message-ID: <DAF87A4C-90F6-43F0-AF36-B5F285F04C80@diplomacy.edu>

Norbert, I can confirm your point on inclusion and participation with a foreign passport, from my own personal experience,.

The Swiss political system provides quite a few useful approaches for IG. A well-developed subsidiarity system is one of them. The Geneva Internet Conference (18-19 November 2014) will include sessions with Swiss experts on subsidiarity, and other approaches that may inspire discussion on the future IG architecture. Here is the current info about the Conference:  http://gip.diplomacy.edu/events/geneva-internet-conference-internet-governance-crossroads .

To the list members: Please drop me an e-mail if you want to be updated about the preparations for the Conference, and the briefing that we plan to organize during the IGF in Istanbul.

Best regards, Jovan

Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience!



On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> At the national level, there is a real notion of citizenship that
>> needs to be taken into account especially in countries where people
>> have a 'real' vote, for some definition of representative democracy
>> and real voting.  I still believe a multistakeholder model is
>> necessary, but i think it comes out differently and needs a
>> definition that take citizenship into account.
>> 
>>> Does anyone have an "equal footing" example at country levels?
>> 
>> I think Switzerland comes closer than many with.
> 
> It may be worth noting that to the (not insignificant) extent that
> multistakeholder processes are part of the Swiss political system,
> people who are not Swiss citizens are not discriminated against in
> regard to full participation in those multistakeholder processes. While
> presenting a passport or equivalent identification is required when
> entering some of the government buildings where some of the meetings
> take place, a foreign passport will be perfectly accepted.
> 
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/b51ee1d4/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jul 28 07:28:41 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:58:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net> <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org> <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net> <E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <53D633E9.5090507@itforchange.net>


David

I think that NTIA divesting itself of the IANA authority is a very good 
thing. However, withdrawal of direct executive control over the root 
zone is hardly enough. The root zone should be free from all legal and 
legislative controls of any one country, including any possibility of 
unilateral application any such control in the future. This is the 
single most important issue with regard to determining where should the 
IANA authority now vest.

The reason I consider the NTIA transition process to be a sham is that 
its framing of the IANA issue is deliberately misleading. It 
misleadingly declares IANA 'function' to be  a merely clerical one. This 
is such an affront to the global community which knows very well that 
for the last 15 years or so the single most prominent geopolitical issue 
in global Internet governance has been the issue of a single country's 
oversight of the Internet, representing in its IANA authority.

How can this major political issue be rendered as a clerical and 
technical issue by a simple sleigh of hand. This to me is in fact cheating.

However, the IANA process is being able to fool only those who are ready 
or even eager to be fooled. It does not actually take away one of the 
major global IG issues from the table. We all know that IANA authority 
will now be handed over to ICANN. Yes, US leaving the executive control 
over IANA is good. However, ICANN cannot be left politically 
unsupervised. (In fact, US jurisdiction will continue to undertake 
ICANN's political/ legal oversight.) ICANN should be incorporated under 
international law, giving it full immunity from US jurisdiction, and be 
put under clear rules based oversight of an appropriate global body, 
which need not be typical inter-governmental.

And, yes, people have given specific institutional models to achieve 
this. See for instance the submission of Just Net Coalition to 
NetMundial at 
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164 
. Specifically see point 3 of the proposed institutional roadmap.

regards
parminder



On Monday 28 July 2014 12:13 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:36 AM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>> I dont see why we should not already be seeking such a body
> No one is stopping you (or whoever 'we' is in the above). You (or whoever 'we' is in the above) just need to come up with something that is at least as trusted by resolver operators of the world as the current system, then convince those operators to make use of that zone maintenance/signing/distribution system.
>
> My suspicion is that this will be a hard sell for a variety of reasons, however the first step is to actually come up with a proposal that resolver operators (not politicians) might look at and decide if they want to play along.
>
>> In fact we now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from the root file.
> As far as I am aware, despite that court decision, .IR remains in the root and nothing has changed with respect to its registration information.
>
>> IANA transition issue is supposed to be basically about these huge current and impending problems.
> My understanding of the transition of the stewardship of IANA is that it is about removing NTIA from its current role. That seems to be a more focused scope that what you believe the IANA transition is supposed to be about. I'm unsure where you derived your view of the IANA transition, but you might want to rereadhttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>
>> The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out right now in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil society should sit up and reflect about...
> As far as I can tell, NTIA and the various folks involved in the transition appear to be are quite serious about wanting to remove NTIA from its current role. I'm unsure why you would consider it a 'sham' unless of course you're accusing the transition participants of not pursuing your personal view of the transition. If that is indeed the case, then I suspect the problem does not really lie with them.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/8dbcfb1e/attachment.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 f.massit at orange.fr  Mon Jul 28 10:15:46 2014
From: f.massit at orange.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?fran=E7oise?=)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:15:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] for information
In-Reply-To: <53D633E9.5090507@itforchange.net>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net> <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org> <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net> <E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org> <53D633E9.5090507@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D555170D-3951-43DB-82F7-57CA0479E223@orange.fr>

Dear gov at list-ers,
Please find  the link to a summary of the recent Report from the  
French Senate and the  pdf doc :
http://www.senat.fr/fileadmin/Fichiers/Images/commission/MCI_nouvelle_gouvernance_de_l_internet/EUROPE_TO_THE_RESCUE_OF_THE_INTERNET_english_summary.pdf
It's an official Report, but who knows its destiny ???
Best regards,
FMF

Le 28 juil. 14 à 13:28, parminder a écrit :

>
> David
>
> I think that NTIA divesting itself of the IANA authority is a very  
> good thing. However, withdrawal of direct executive control  
> over      the root zone is hardly enough. The root zone should be  
> free from all legal and legislative controls of any one country,  
> including any possibility of unilateral application any such control  
> in the future. This is the single most important issue with regard  
> to determining where should the IANA authority now vest.
>
> The reason I consider the NTIA transition process to be a sham is  
> that its framing of the IANA issue is deliberately misleading.  
> It      misleadingly declares IANA 'function' to be  a merely  
> clerical one. This is such an affront to the global community which  
> knows very well that for the last 15 years or so the single most  
> prominent geopolitical issue in global Internet governance has been  
> the issue of a single country's oversight of the Internet,  
> representing in its IANA authority.
>
> How can this major political issue be rendered as a clerical and  
> technical issue by a simple sleigh of hand. This to me is in fact  
> cheating.
>
> However, the IANA process is being able to fool only those who are  
> ready or even eager to be fooled. It does not actually take away one  
> of the major global IG issues from the table. We all know that IANA  
> authority will now be handed over to ICANN. Yes, US leaving the  
> executive control over IANA is good. However, ICANN cannot be left  
> politically unsupervised. (In fact, US jurisdiction will continue to  
> undertake ICANN's political/ legal oversight.) ICANN should be  
> incorporated under international law, giving it full immunity from  
> US jurisdiction, and be put under clear rules based oversight of an  
> appropriate global body, which need not be typical inter-governmental.
>
> And, yes, people have given specific institutional models to achieve  
> this. See for instance the submission of Just Net Coalition to  
> NetMundial at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164 
>  . Specifically see point 3 of the proposed institutional roadmap.
>
> regards
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Monday 28 July 2014 12:13 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>> Parminder,
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:36 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>  
>> wrote:
>>> I dont see why we should not already be seeking such a body
>> No one is stopping you (or whoever 'we' is in the above). You (or  
>> whoever 'we' is in the above) just need to come up with something  
>> that is at least as trusted by resolver operators of the world as  
>> the current system, then convince those operators to make use of  
>> that zone maintenance/signing/distribution system.
>>
>> My suspicion is that this will be a hard sell for a variety of  
>> reasons, however the first step is to actually come up with a  
>> proposal that resolver operators (not politicians) might look at  
>> and decide if they want to play along.
>>
>>> In fact we now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from  
>>> the root file.
>> As far as I am aware, despite that court decision, .IR remains in  
>> the root and nothing has changed with respect to its registration  
>> information.
>>
>>> IANA transition issue is supposed to be basically about these huge  
>>> current and impending problems.
>> My understanding of the transition of the stewardship of IANA is  
>> that it is about removing NTIA from its current role. That seems to  
>> be a more focused scope that what you believe the IANA transition  
>> is supposed to be about. I'm unsure where you derived your view of  
>> the IANA transition, but you might want to reread http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions 
>> .
>>
>>> The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out right now  
>>> in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil society  
>>> should sit up and reflect about...
>> As far as I can tell, NTIA and the various folks involved in the  
>> transition appear to be are quite serious about wanting to remove  
>> NTIA from its current role. I'm unsure why you would consider it a  
>> 'sham' unless of course you're accusing the transition participants  
>> of not pursuing your personal view of the transition. If that is  
>> indeed the case, then I suspect the problem does not really lie  
>> with them.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

Françoise Massit-Folléa
f.massit at orange.fr
Mob. 06 74 51 67 65



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/70c55916/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EUROPE_TO_THE_RESCUE_OF_THE_INTERNET_english_summary.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 522776 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/70c55916/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/70c55916/attachment-0001.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jul 28 10:56:07 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:26:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] for information
In-Reply-To: <D555170D-3951-43DB-82F7-57CA0479E223@orange.fr>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net> <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org> <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net> <E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org> <53D633E9.5090507@itforchange.net> <D555170D-3951-43DB-82F7-57CA0479E223@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <53D66487.9030304@itforchange.net>


On Monday 28 July 2014 07:45 PM, françoise wrote:
> Dear gov at list-ers,
> Please find  the link to a summary of the recent Report from the 
> French Senate and the  pdf doc :
> http://www.senat.fr/fileadmin/Fichiers/Images/commission/MCI_nouvelle_gouvernance_de_l_internet/EUROPE_TO_THE_RESCUE_OF_THE_INTERNET_english_summary.pdf

The points made in this report have great congruence with points made in 
the principles of the Just Net Coalition  at 
http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration


parminder


> It's an official Report, but who knows its destiny ???
> Best regards,
> FMF
>
>
>
> Le 28 juil. 14 à 13:28, parminder a écrit :
>
>>
>> David
>>
>> I think that NTIA divesting itself of the IANA authority is a very 
>> good thing. However, withdrawal of direct executive control over the 
>> root zone is hardly enough. The root zone should be free from all 
>> legal and legislative controls of any one country, including any 
>> possibility of unilateral application any such control in the future. 
>> This is the single most important issue with regard to determining 
>> where should the IANA authority now vest.
>>
>> The reason I consider the NTIA transition process to be a sham is 
>> that its framing of the IANA issue is deliberately misleading. It 
>> misleadingly declares IANA 'function' to be  a merely clerical one. 
>> This is such an affront to the global community which knows very well 
>> that for the last 15 years or so the single most prominent 
>> geopolitical issue in global Internet governance has been the issue 
>> of a single country's oversight of the Internet, representing in its 
>> IANA authority.
>>
>> How can this major political issue be rendered as a clerical and 
>> technical issue by a simple sleigh of hand. This to me is in fact 
>> cheating.
>>
>> However, the IANA process is being able to fool only those who are 
>> ready or even eager to be fooled. It does not actually take away one 
>> of the major global IG issues from the table. We all know that IANA 
>> authority will now be handed over to ICANN. Yes, US leaving the 
>> executive control over IANA is good. However, ICANN cannot be left 
>> politically unsupervised. (In fact, US jurisdiction will continue to 
>> undertake ICANN's political/ legal oversight.) ICANN should be 
>> incorporated under international law, giving it full immunity from US 
>> jurisdiction, and be put under clear rules based oversight of an 
>> appropriate global body, which need not be typical inter-governmental.
>>
>> And, yes, people have given specific institutional models to achieve 
>> this. See for instance the submission of Just Net Coalition to 
>> NetMundial at 
>> http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164 
>> . Specifically see point 3 of the proposed institutional roadmap.
>>
>> regards
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday 28 July 2014 12:13 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>>> Parminder,
>>>
>>> On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:36 AM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>>>> I dont see why we should not already be seeking such a body
>>> No one is stopping you (or whoever 'we' is in the above). You (or whoever 'we' is in the above) just need to come up with something that is at least as trusted by resolver operators of the world as the current system, then convince those operators to make use of that zone maintenance/signing/distribution system.
>>>
>>> My suspicion is that this will be a hard sell for a variety of reasons, however the first step is to actually come up with a proposal that resolver operators (not politicians) might look at and decide if they want to play along.
>>>
>>>> In fact we now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from the root file.
>>> As far as I am aware, despite that court decision, .IR remains in the root and nothing has changed with respect to its registration information.
>>>
>>>> IANA transition issue is supposed to be basically about these huge current and impending problems.
>>> My understanding of the transition of the stewardship of IANA is that it is about removing NTIA from its current role. That seems to be a more focused scope that what you believe the IANA transition is supposed to be about. I'm unsure where you derived your view of the IANA transition, but you might want to rereadhttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>>>
>>>> The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out right now in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil society should sit up and reflect about...
>>> As far as I can tell, NTIA and the various folks involved in the transition appear to be are quite serious about wanting to remove NTIA from its current role. I'm unsure why you would consider it a 'sham' unless of course you're accusing the transition participants of not pursuing your personal view of the transition. If that is indeed the case, then I suspect the problem does not really lie with them.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -drc
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> Françoise Massit-Folléa
> f.massit at orange.fr <mailto:f.massit at orange.fr>
> Mob. 06 74 51 67 65
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/9e33dc7d/attachment.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Jul 28 11:19:18 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:19:18 -0400
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
Responding to Ian's reminder, and to the discussion generally - what is a
stake? who holds one? how/why do they hold it?
Somewhere about 2004 (possibly earlier) it looks as if stakeholder and
shareholder became confused (my conjecture, possibly through a shareholder
being described as having a stake in a company?) Prior to that, stakeholder
seems to have been seen "officially" as the neutral third party without a
personal interest who holds the stakes or wagers until the matter of the
bet is resolved. The term now seems to have flipped completely to mean
someone with an interest of some type in the issue at hand. Perhaps the
contradictory flip from "without personal interest" to "with personal
interest" helps explain some of the difficulties with the term?
So is a stake an interest?
Is the holder a person or a group of people?
I was discussing the second question last month with someone from this
region (LAC) and he suggested the following answer -
"Also from a practical standpoint, a group viewpoint would tend to carry
more weight than an individual one so it would behove like-minded
individuals to organise themselves in representing their views (e.g.
individuals into civil society groups or even groups into lobbies). In
addition, I also have the sense of multistakeholder as implying a  group of
stakeholders of equal status. To my mind, this would work best if the
substantive stakeholders are either groups or individuals, but not both
together."
This is my response to that issue:
"There is an inherent inequality about this which is always overlooked.
Corporations and organisations already have an existence. They are held
together by existing structures. However the end users are an amorphous lot
(as well as being the clear majority, all 3 billion of them) To require
them to organise themselves so that they have the right to speak puts them
at an extreme disadvantage, particularly considering the diversity of their
opinions. An "innovative" thing about the Internet ... is that essentially
it functions at the level of the individual. Perhaps we need to learn to
use it at the level of the individual too. It's amazing how much
prominence, within organisations, is given to physical meetings. The recent
ICANN meeting in London was attended by about 3000 people: the constituency
of the internet end user is 3 billion, a billion times bigger."
If we can reach some sort of agreement on who or what a stakeholder is,
then I think it will become easier to find consensus on multistakeholder
process, or multistakeholderism.
Sorry for the long message
Deirdre


On 27 July 2014 16:22, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Trying to go back to the original discussion -
>
> I hear all the reasons why we can’t avoid discussing equal footing. But
> the beginning here was the idea of a consensual statement on
> multistakeholderism – I think we should work on that, with as good a
> reference to equal footing as we can agree on at this stage, rather than
> divert to trying to develop a common position on what equal footing means.
>
> Because I think we can get somewhere on a multistakeholderism statement.
>
> Ian
>
>  *From:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 28, 2014 4:58 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; McTim
> <dogwallah at gmail.com>
>  *Subject:* Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance]
> Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
>
>
>   McTim,
>
> You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
> from, the ITU/WSIS breed.
> First of all, I'd contend that the constituency-based approach at ICANN
> was and still is an instance of MSism. Don't take my word for it; as soon
> as the WSIS process made the term 'multistakeholder' fashionable, we've
> heard it a lot reclaimed in ICANN's ranks. So much so that they have now
> re-devised their old constituency groupings into stakeholder groupings.
> However, as far as I know, ICANN only dealt with its direct stakeholders as
> organization, that is, the domain name industry, the technical community
> (security and stability aspects of the net), and the business, particularly
> via the lenses of IPR issues.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the very early failed attempt at direct voting by end
> users for their reps on the board of directors, but after that it took many
> years for the Noncommercial user constituency to be recognized (only as
> part of the GNSO community) and for ICANN itself to get the ALAC structures
> going. (Please feel free to correct me or complete if I'm missing any major
> aspect of things here; I'm just summarizing on the flight.) At the end of
> the day, constituencies and stakeholders at ICANN have also had to be
> divided into separate groupings with an identity label -- and so it was
> before WSIS started.
>
> Was that then a perfect instance of MSism which ITU-WSIS came to spoil? I
> just once to have this clarified once for all as to what you exactly mean
> everything you point to ITU as having put the worm in the fruit (or
> whatever colloquialism I'm missing to remember correctly here) by
> delineating stakeholder groups as it did during the WSIS process.
>
> Beyond that, I'd also appreciate if you can give references or pointers to
> any clear formulations (e.g, RFC or excerpt of charter, of rules and
> operating procedures of relevant groups, or other informal text that may
> have served for guidance in implementing MSism, etc.) of instances of MSism
> you deem successful or which should be taken as reference (such as any
> version of "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+
> decades.") My apologies if that has been done before, as I suspect it could
> have.
>
> Thanks and cheers,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
>> > "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good
>> >> in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally
>> >> good for the foxes...
>> >
>> > Equal footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to
>> > escape?
>> >
>> > SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)
>> >
>> > On a more serious note, how should the following be classified?
>> >
>> > During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document, the
>> > UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears to
>> > the proposal to include a reference to the civil society WSIS
>> > declaration alongside the governmental one.
>>
>>
>> We have to keep in mind that the "MS" IG processes which emanate from
>> Geneva are not the same sort of MSism that built and developed the
>> Internet for the last 3+ decades.  Those are the models we should be
>> using, NOT the ones that come from Geneva.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/55cf8af2/attachment.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Jul 28 15:28:54 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:28:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [web2fordev] Forthcoming Web 2.0 & Social Media
 training events in DRC, Haiti, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, PNG,
 Samoa, Somalia, Swaziland, Vanuatu, ...
In-Reply-To: <8232758ff869458f9c1d43de8ae260aa@AM3PR07MB241.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <8232758ff869458f9c1d43de8ae260aa@AM3PR07MB241.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7ccmfDfhqpXMPbj_UynwCNwYWD3-A=4LRcHmTHYZzp1A@mail.gmail.com>

This training may be of interest to some people on the list.
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Giacomo Rambaldi <rambaldi at cta.int>
Date: 28 July 2014 13:26
Subject: [web2fordev] Forthcoming Web 2.0 & Social Media training events in
DRC, Haiti, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, PNG, Samoa, Somalia,
Swaziland, Vanuatu, ...
To: Web2ForDev Discussion Group <web2fordev at dgroups.org>


 Dear all,



We have many Web 2.0 & Social Media face to face training events in the
pipeline.

Below is a list of the venues and their status. Please feel free to
disseminate this email among your partners / beneficiaries / constituencies.



·         01-05 Sept 2014, National Library Service (NLS), Lilongwe,
*Malawi*. Application closing date: 11 August, 2014. More info
<http://web2fordev.net/en/event/malawi/2014-09-01/web-20-and-social-media-learning-opportunity.html>
.

·         08-12 Sept 2014, Department of Information and Communication
Studies, University of Namibia, Windhoek, *Namibia. *Application closing
date: 11 August, 2014. More info
<http://web2fordev.net/en/event/namibia/2014-09-08/web-20-and-social-media-learning-opportunity.html>

·         08-12 Sept 2014, National University of Lesotho (NUL), Roma,
*Lesotho*. Application closing date: 11 August, 2014. More info
<http://web2fordev.net/en/event/lesotho/2014-09-08/web-20-and-social-media-learning-opportunity.html>
.

·         15-19 Sept 2014, Mananga Centre for Regional Integration and
Management Development; Ezulwini Campus, Ezulwini, *Swaziland*. Application
closing date: 25 August, 2014. More info
<http://web2fordev.net/en/event/swaziland/2014-09-15/web-20-and-social-media-learning-opportunity.html>

·         22-26 Sept 2014, National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI),
Aiyura, *Papua New Guinea*. Application closing date: 8 September, 2014. More
info.
<http://web2fordev.net/en/event/papua-new-guinea/2014-09-22/web-20-and-social-media-learning-opportunity.html>

·         22-26 Sept 2014, Bowen University, Iwo, Osun State, *Nigeria*.
Application closing date: 1 September, 2014. More info
<http://web2fordev.net/en/event/nigeria/2014-09-22/web-20-and-social-media-learning-opportunity.html>
.

·         22-26 Sept 2014, SomaliREN c/o SIMAD University, Mogadishu,
*Somalia*. By invitation only.

·         13-17 Oct, 2014, Ministry for Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry,
Fisheries and Biosecurity, Port Vila, *Vanuatu*. To be announced

·         20-26 Oct, 2014, National Institute for Freshwater Fisheries
Research, New-Bussa, Niger State, *Nigeria*. To be announced

·         27-31 Oct, 2014, Women in Business Development Inc. (WBDI), Apia,
*Samoa*. To be announced

·         Date t.b.d. UNIPORT, Port Harcourt, *Nigeria*. To be announced

·         Date t.b.d. *Democratic Republic of Congo*. To be announced

·         Date t.b.d. PROMODEV, *Haiti*. To be announced



For your information we have updated a dedicated world map showing where
Web 2.0 & Social Media Learning Opportunities have already taken place:
http://web2fordev.net/en/about/where.html



Best regards





*[image: logo_cta_new]*

*Giacomo Rambaldi*

Senior Programme Coordinator | LinkedIn Profile
<http://nl.linkedin.com/in/grambaldi/>

CTA | P.O. Box 380 | 6700AJ Wageningen |The Netherlands | www.cta.int
| on Google
Maps <http://goo.gl/maps/eAH0b>

Tel: +31 (0) 317 467174 (direct)|Fax: +31 (0) 317 460067 | rambaldi at cta.int
| Skype: giacomo4411
Follow CTA on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/CTApage> and Twitter
<http://www.twitter.com/ctaflash>

Follow Web2forDev on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/web2fordev/>, Twitter
<http://www.twitter.com/web2fordev/>, Google+
<https://plus.google.com/b/116921179569518283563/116921179569518283563/posts>,
vimeo <https://vimeo.com/channels/web2fordev> and join the community on
DGroups <https://dgroups.org/groups/web2fordev> and LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/groupRegistration?gid=135666>

Follow PGIS/PPGIS on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/ppgis/>, Twitter
<http://www.twitter.com/ppgis/> and join the community on DGroups
<http://www.ppgis.net/> and LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/131362/56BA201FA389>

[image: facebook] <http://www.facebook.com/web2fordev/>  [image: twitter]
<http://www.twitter.com/web2fordev/>  [image: googleplus]
<https://plus.google.com/b/116921179569518283563/116921179569518283563/posts>
  [image: vimeo] <https://vimeo.com/channels/web2fordev> [image: dgroups_36]
<http://www.web2fordev.net/en/discussion.html> [image: linkedin]
<http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/131362/56BA201FA389>

*... Sharing knowledge, improving rural livelihoods ...*



Watch our latest video production on YouTube ...

[image: ict4ag-stats-video-350pxl] <http://youtu.be/wGmoX052TLk>

The content of this E-mail is confidential and may contain privileged
information to the sole intended recipient at the E- mail address to which
it has been addressed. It may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other
than the addressee, nor may it be copied or forwarded in any way without
the consent of the sender. The sender hereby makes no representation as to
the accuracy, completeness for a particular purpose of the information
provided in this E-mail. No binding commitment from the sender may be
inferred by means of E-mail communications. Please note that the sender
accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
the E-mail and attachments (if any). If received in error, please reply by
mail to the sender or contact the sender by phone, and then delete it from
your system.





This list is hosted by DGroups and moderated by CTA <http://www.cta.int>.
Interested in Web 2.0 for development related matters? Visit
www.web2fordev.net !
Join the Web2forDev Community on LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/groupRegistration?gid=135666&csrfToken=ajax:1707797311367187572>
and Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/web2fordev>
Join CTA on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/ctapage> and Twitter
<http://www.twitter.com/ctaflash>
Interested on ICT4D updates? Click here <http://ictupdate.cta.int>!

 You are receiving this message because you are a member of the
community Web2ForDev
Discussion Group <https://dgroups.org/groups/web2fordev>.

View this contribution on the web site <https://dgroups.org/_/y0p25vqg>

A reply to this message will be sent to all members of Web2ForDev
Discussion Group.

Reply to sender <rambaldi at cta.int> | Unsubscribe
<leave.web2fordev at dgroups.org>



-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/f51603fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/f51603fe/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4014 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/f51603fe/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/f51603fe/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/f51603fe/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3919 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/f51603fe/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7245 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/f51603fe/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3839 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/f51603fe/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3064 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/f51603fe/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 28 15:32:32 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:32:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Public Consultation - Final Push!
In-Reply-To: <CAJtCmGTSEKuA4mpC7Z2n23hrvMs9v5eSyaiP5P4OqkchmeCZtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJtCmGTSEKuA4mpC7Z2n23hrvMs9v5eSyaiP5P4OqkchmeCZtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53D6A550.7020309@apc.org>


Dear all

Apologies for cross posting.

We would really, really value your input into the draft African
Declaration for Internet Rights and Freedoms.

It is available online for comment in English, French and Arabic.

The deadline for input is 4 August.

Thanks you very much.

Anriette

http://africaninternetrights.org/

http://africaninternetrights.org/ar/draft-ar/

http://africaninternetrights.org/fr/draft-fr/



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 28 16:30:08 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:30:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] Global trade in medicines - we have a new
 regulator
In-Reply-To: <53CD33C9.1030705@itforchange.net>
References: <53CD2FD4.2030806@itforchange.net> <53CD33C9.1030705@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiLLHq3Z=FU4AFhYQdAF7dJQpYwVrg5f7GWqpovp+TiGA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Parminder,



On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:37 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> This is my question to all ICANN-ist here, that great multistakeholder body
> supposed to be representing the global interest.
>
> Why should the question of who is a legitimate actor for online medicine
> trade be decided by the US pharma industry


The Registry Operator for .pharmacy is NABP, who already decide who is
a "legitimate actor" for online medicine trade in several ways (see
VIPPS/Vet-VIPPS, etc on the website below:

http://www.nabp.net/about

"Founded in 1904, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy
(NABP) is the impartial professional organization that supports the
state boards of pharmacy in protecting public health. NABP aims to
ensure the public’s health and safety through its pharmacist license
transfer and pharmacist competence assessment programs, as well as
through its VIPPS, Vet-VIPPS, VAWD, and DMEPOS accreditation programs.

NABP’s member boards of pharmacy are grouped into eight districts that
include all 50 United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Australia, eight Canadian provinces, and New
Zealand. The Association is governed by its Executive Committee, whose
officers and members are elected during the Association’s Annual
Meeting.

For more on NABP’s members and its efforts to protect the public
health, see the Member and Government Affairs sections of the Web
site.

Preamble and Mission Statement

NABP’s efforts to protect the public health are guided by its Preamble
and Mission Statement.

Preamble
The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) recognizes and
supports pharmacists serving as the health care professionals
responsible for providing patient care that ensures optimal medication
therapy outcomes. NABP also recognizes the ongoing and critical need
for patients’ medications to be managed by a licensed pharmacist and
state regulatory agencies to aggressively enforce standards of care.

NABP Mission Statement
NABP is the independent, international, and impartial association that
assists its member boards and jurisdictions for the purpose of
protecting the public health."


In other words, .pharmacy is NOT controlled by "big pharma".

As the Registry Operator for .pharmacy, NABP will be making the
decisions regarding name allocation using a set of International
Standards and Policies.  The decisions will NOT be made by
pharmaceutical companies or anyone in that industry.


 the most despised actor among
> public health practitioners and actors for trying to maintain unaffordably
> high prices for medicines the world over, and suppressing manufacture and
> trade of the much much cheaper generic dyrugs (in which, India is incidently
> a big players).
>
> Why should ICANN become a lever in the hands of big pharma?

It is clearly not in re: .pharmacy.


>
> Why cannot for instance WHO manage .pharmacy?


Because they didn't apply for it.

-- 
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 nlalinx at gmail.com  Mon Jul 28 18:03:38 2014
From: nlalinx at gmail.com (Nico Z)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:03:38 -0300
Subject: [governance] Funding opportunities for the IGF?
In-Reply-To: <CFFC2E55.A153%mgodwin@internews.org>
References: <CAJtCmGTSEKuA4mpC7Z2n23hrvMs9v5eSyaiP5P4OqkchmeCZtA@mail.gmail.com> <53D6A550.7020309@apc.org> <CFFC2E55.A153%mgodwin@internews.org>
Message-ID: <40803918-F769-4EF2-8FE4-5E4DB91D4931@gmail.com>

Dear all,

a quick question related to funding opportunities for the 2014 IGF. Does anyone know whether any IG-related organizations (still) accepts applications for funding of civil society/academia at this time?

Many thanks in advance

Nicolo


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Mon Jul 28 18:18:23 2014
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:18:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <53D633E9.5090507@itforchange.net>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net> <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org> <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net> <E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org> <53D633E9.5090507@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C9424BE9-EAF2-47F8-806A-9390DE75FD67@virtualized.org>

Parminder,

On Jul 28, 2014, at 4:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> It misleadingly declares IANA 'function' to be  a merely clerical one.

While I'm sure you will not believe me, having (long ago and I doubt things have changed) been the general manager of IANA, this declaration is _not_ misleading.  The IANA functions are, in most cases, editing a text file according to externally defined policies and publishing the result. I know that is boring and doesn't play to particular political agendas, but it is reality.

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/95a75314/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/95a75314/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 28 19:59:28 2014
From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:59:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] for information
In-Reply-To: <53D66487.9030304@itforchange.net>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net> <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org> <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net> <E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org> <53D633E9.5090507@itforchange.net> <D555170D-3951-43DB-82F7-57CA0479E223@orange.fr> <53D66487.9030304@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1406591968.50647.YahooMailNeo@web172104.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

Quite an interesting report but the rapporteur did not tell us if the present configuration of the UN with five countries dominating the world will be not influence decisions on the new IG setup of WICANN.
Another interesting element in the report is the complaint on the domination of the Internet ecosystem by American companies and the drop of EU companies from 12 to 8.  Innovation and creativity comes from the private sector. The question here is: Why the drop of EU companies, who is responsible?
Where is the place of Africa, who cares?
Is the Internet an EU-American rival thing?

 
___________________________________
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 28 juillet 2014 16h57, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> a écrit :
 




On Monday 28 July 2014 07:45 PM, françoise wrote:

Dear gov at list-ers, 
>Please find  the link to a summary of the recent Report from the French Senate and the  pdf doc : 
>http://www.senat.fr/fileadmin/Fichiers/Images/commission/MCI_nouvelle_gouvernance_de_l_internet/EUROPE_TO_THE_RESCUE_OF_THE_INTERNET_english_summary.pdf
The points made in this report have great congruence with points
    made in the principles of the Just Net Coalition  at http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration


parminder




It's an official Report, but who knows its destiny ???
>Best regards,
>FMF
>
>
>
>
>Le 28 juil. 14 à 13:28, parminder a écrit :
>

David

I think that NTIA divesting itself of the IANA
                  authority is a very good thing. However, withdrawal of
                  direct executive control over the root zone is hardly
                  enough. The root zone should be free from all legal
                  and legislative controls of any one country, including
                  any possibility of unilateral application any such
                  control in the future. This is the single most
                  important issue with regard to determining where
                  should the IANA authority now vest. 

The reason I consider the NTIA transition process to
                  be a sham is that its framing of the IANA issue is
                  deliberately misleading. It misleadingly declares IANA
                  'function' to be  a merely clerical one. This is such
                  an affront to the global community which knows very
                  well that for the last 15 years or so the single most
                  prominent geopolitical issue in global Internet
                  governance has been the issue of a single country's
                  oversight of the Internet, representing in its IANA
                  authority.

How can this major political issue be rendered as a
                  clerical and technical issue by a simple sleigh of
                  hand. This to me is in fact cheating. 

However, the IANA process is being able to fool only
                  those who are ready or even eager to be fooled. It
                  does not actually take away one of the major global IG
                  issues from the table. We all know that IANA authority
                  will now be handed over to ICANN. Yes, US leaving the
                  executive control over IANA is good. However, ICANN
                  cannot be left politically unsupervised. (In fact, US
                  jurisdiction will continue to undertake ICANN's
                  political/ legal oversight.) ICANN should be
                  incorporated under international law, giving it full
                  immunity from US jurisdiction, and be put under clear
                  rules based oversight of an appropriate global body,
                  which need not be typical inter-governmental.

And, yes, people have given specific institutional
                  models to achieve this. See for instance the
                  submission of Just Net Coalition to NetMundial at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164 . Specifically see point 3 of the proposed institutional roadmap.  

regards
parminder 



 
On Monday 28 July 2014 12:13 AM, David Conrad wrote:

Parminder, On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:36 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: 
>I dont see why we should not already be seeking such a body 
>No one is stopping you (or whoever 'we' is in the above). You (or whoever 'we' is in the above) just need to come up with something that is at least as trusted by resolver operators of the world as the current system, then convince those operators to make use of that zone maintenance/signing/distribution system. My suspicion is that this will be a hard sell for a variety of reasons, however the first step is to actually come up with a proposal that resolver operators (not politicians) might look at and decide if they want to play along. 
>In fact we now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from the root file. 
>As far as I am aware, despite that court decision, .IR remains in the root and nothing has changed with respect to its registration information. 
>IANA transition issue is supposed to be basically about these huge current and impending problems. 
>My understanding of the transition of the stewardship of IANA is that it is about removing NTIA from its current role. That seems to be a more focused scope that what you believe the IANA transition is supposed to be about. I'm unsure where you derived your view of the IANA transition, but you might want to reread http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions. 
>The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out right now in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil society should sit up and reflect about... 
>As far as I can tell, NTIA and the various folks involved in the transition appear to be are quite serious about wanting to remove NTIA from its current role. I'm unsure why you would consider it a 'sham' unless of course you're accusing the transition participants of not pursuing your personal view of the transition. If that is indeed the case, then I suspect the problem does not really lie with them. Regards,
-drc 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


Françoise Massit-Folléa
f.massit at orange.fr
Mob. 06 74 51 67 65





____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/7f3404ad/attachment.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jul 28 20:54:09 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:54:09 +1000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net> <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill> <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba>

Interesting Deirdre.

The Oxford Dictionary gives the word both meanings, with the one you mention tied specifically to gambling instances.

But more broadly, it also defines stakeholder as 

“A person with an interest or concern in something”

which I think works well for our context.

Interestingly, the Oxford or any other dictionary does not yet define multistakeholder. 

Definitions seem to vary. According to Lawrence E. Strickling, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, and NTIA Administrator, "the multistakeholder process, ... involves the full involvement of all stakeholders, consensus-based decision-making and operating in an open, transparent and accountable manner”. So that seems to be what one product champion (US Government) seems to think it is.

I think there is plenty of room for improvement and clarification there.

Ian 



From: Deirdre Williams 
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:19 AM
To: Internet Governance ; Ian Peter 
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

Dear All, 
Responding to Ian's reminder, and to the discussion generally - what is a stake? who holds one? how/why do they hold it?
Somewhere about 2004 (possibly earlier) it looks as if stakeholder and shareholder became confused (my conjecture, possibly through a shareholder being described as having a stake in a company?) Prior to that, stakeholder seems to have been seen "officially" as the neutral third party without a personal interest who holds the stakes or wagers until the matter of the bet is resolved. The term now seems to have flipped completely to mean someone with an interest of some type in the issue at hand. Perhaps the contradictory flip from "without personal interest" to "with personal interest" helps explain some of the difficulties with the term?
So is a stake an interest?
Is the holder a person or a group of people?
I was discussing the second question last month with someone from this region (LAC) and he suggested the following answer -
"Also from a practical standpoint, a group viewpoint would tend to carry more weight than an individual one so it would behove like-minded individuals to organise themselves in representing their views (e.g. individuals into civil society groups or even groups into lobbies). In addition, I also have the sense of multistakeholder as implying a  group of stakeholders of equal status. To my mind, this would work best if the substantive stakeholders are either groups or individuals, but not both together."
This is my response to that issue:
"There is an inherent inequality about this which is always overlooked. Corporations and organisations already have an existence. They are held together by existing structures. However the end users are an amorphous lot (as well as being the clear majority, all 3 billion of them) To require them to organise themselves so that they have the right to speak puts them at an extreme disadvantage, particularly considering the diversity of their opinions. An "innovative" thing about the Internet ... is that essentially it functions at the level of the individual. Perhaps we need to learn to use it at the level of the individual too. It's amazing how much prominence, within organisations, is given to physical meetings. The recent ICANN meeting in London was attended by about 3000 people: the constituency of the internet end user is 3 billion, a billion times bigger."

If we can reach some sort of agreement on who or what a stakeholder is, then I think it will become easier to find consensus on multistakeholder process, or multistakeholderism.
Sorry for the long message
Deirdre



On 27 July 2014 16:22, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

  Trying to go back to the original discussion -

  I hear all the reasons why we can’t avoid discussing equal footing. But the beginning here was the idea of a consensual statement on multistakeholderism – I think we should work on that, with as good a reference to equal footing as we can agree on at this stage, rather than divert to trying to develop a common position on what equal footing means.

  Because I think we can get somewhere on a multistakeholderism statement. 

  Ian

  From: Mawaki Chango 
  Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:58 AM
  To: Internet Governance ; McTim 
  Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process


  McTim,

  You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only from, the ITU/WSIS breed.
  First of all, I'd contend that the constituency-based approach at ICANN was and still is an instance of MSism. Don't take my word for it; as soon as the WSIS process made the term 'multistakeholder' fashionable, we've heard it a lot reclaimed in ICANN's ranks. So much so that they have now re-devised their old constituency groupings into stakeholder groupings. However, as far as I know, ICANN only dealt with its direct stakeholders as organization, that is, the domain name industry, the technical community (security and stability aspects of the net), and the business, particularly via the lenses of IPR issues. 

  Yes, I'm aware of the very early failed attempt at direct voting by end users for their reps on the board of directors, but after that it took many years for the Noncommercial user constituency to be recognized (only as part of the GNSO community) and for ICANN itself to get the ALAC structures going. (Please feel free to correct me or complete if I'm missing any major aspect of things here; I'm just summarizing on the flight.) At the end of the day, constituencies and stakeholders at ICANN have also had to be divided into separate groupings with an identity label -- and so it was before WSIS started.

  Was that then a perfect instance of MSism which ITU-WSIS came to spoil? I just once to have this clarified once for all as to what you exactly mean everything you point to ITU as having put the worm in the fruit (or whatever colloquialism I'm missing to remember correctly here) by delineating stakeholder groups as it did during the WSIS process. 

  Beyond that, I'd also appreciate if you can give references or pointers to any clear formulations (e.g, RFC or excerpt of charter, of rules and operating procedures of relevant groups, or other informal text that may have served for guidance in implementing MSism, etc.) of instances of MSism you deem successful or which should be taken as reference (such as any version of "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+ decades.") My apologies if that has been done before, as I suspect it could have.


  Thanks and cheers,


  Mawaki



  On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

    All,



    On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
    > "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty good
    >> in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally
    >> good for the foxes...
    >
    > Equal footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to
    > escape?
    >
    > SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)
    >
    > On a more serious note, how should the following be classified?
    >
    > During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document, the
    > UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears to
    > the proposal to include a reference to the civil society WSIS
    > declaration alongside the governmental one.



    We have to keep in mind that the "MS" IG processes which emanate from
    Geneva are not the same sort of MSism that built and developed the
    Internet for the last 3+ decades.  Those are the models we should be
    using, NOT the ones that come from Geneva.




    --
    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






-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/183e2e02/attachment.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Jul 28 20:57:12 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:57:12 +1000
Subject: [governance] Funding opportunities for the IGF?
In-Reply-To: <40803918-F769-4EF2-8FE4-5E4DB91D4931@gmail.com>
References: <CAJtCmGTSEKuA4mpC7Z2n23hrvMs9v5eSyaiP5P4OqkchmeCZtA@mail.gmail.com> <53D6A550.7020309@apc.org> <CFFC2E55.A153%mgodwin@internews.org> <40803918-F769-4EF2-8FE4-5E4DB91D4931@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5041E4FFEAD3423C8ABE27F31C15DC96@Toshiba>

I would be interested to know as well. As far as I know, even the IGC 
co-ordinators do not yet have funding (maybe that's changed in the last few 
days).

Ian Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: Nico Z
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:03 AM
To: Best Bits
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: [governance] Funding opportunities for the IGF?

Dear all,

a quick question related to funding opportunities for the 2014 IGF. Does 
anyone know whether any IG-related organizations (still) accepts 
applications for funding of civil society/academia at this time?

Many thanks in advance

Nicolo








____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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  Mon Jul 28 21:07:59 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:07:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Funding opportunities for the IGF?
In-Reply-To: <5041E4FFEAD3423C8ABE27F31C15DC96@Toshiba>
References: <CAJtCmGTSEKuA4mpC7Z2n23hrvMs9v5eSyaiP5P4OqkchmeCZtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D6A550.7020309@apc.org> <CFFC2E55.A153%mgodwin@internews.org>
 <40803918-F769-4EF2-8FE4-5E4DB91D4931@gmail.com> <5041E4FFEAD3423C8ABE27F31C15DC96@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6wUJJOXvPJs8NTveYhr1fEZO0ei9jL15N0euHTMrtHpA@mail.gmail.com>

This IGC co-coordinator certainly doesn't have funding yet.
I was hoping that there was good news for Nico from ISOC, but when I
checked that application process has now closed.
Let's all wish each other good luck and hope for the best.
Deirdre


On 28 July 2014 20:57, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> I would be interested to know as well. As far as I know, even the IGC
> co-ordinators do not yet have funding (maybe that's changed in the last few
> days).
>
> Ian Peter
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Nico Z
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:03 AM
> To: Best Bits
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Funding opportunities for the IGF?
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> a quick question related to funding opportunities for the 2014 IGF. Does
> anyone know whether any IG-related organizations (still) accepts
> applications for funding of civil society/academia at this time?
>
> Many thanks in advance
>
> Nicolo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/c4ff8b36/attachment.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 avri at acm.org  Tue Jul 29 04:48:13 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:48:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] re: stakeholder
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net> <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill> <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53D75FCD.2090106@acm.org>



On 28-Jul-14 17:19, Deirdre Williams wrote:

> Responding to Ian's reminder, and to the discussion generally - what
>  is a stake? who holds one? how/why do they hold it?

Sometime a word is just a word.

All words have many uses and definitions, and yes, the old origin of the
word was someone who held the stakes (wagers) in a bet.  The usage I
tend toward (though I am sure i could quibble over the words, but it
comes close, come from project management.

This one is from
<http://www.projectmanagementdocs.com/blog/what-is-a-stakeholder.html>

but it is only one of a many similar reference that can be found.

> " Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who
> can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be
> individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations,
> or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively
> involved in a project’s work, affected by the project’s outcome, or
> in a position to affect the project’s success. "


In this case the project is the Internet, its health as an open and
global resource including its extension beyond the digital divide to all
the world's people.

It would probably be a good idea to specialize the definition for use in
Ig discussions, but that is the general idea I have in mind when I use it.

And in all of this, I can only speak for my understandings.

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 kichango at gmail.com  Tue Jul 29 04:49:28 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:49:28 +0000
Subject: [governance] for information
In-Reply-To: <1406591968.50647.YahooMailNeo@web172104.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net>
 <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net>
 <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org> <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net>
 <E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org> <53D633E9.5090507@itforchange.net>
 <D555170D-3951-43DB-82F7-57CA0479E223@orange.fr> <53D66487.9030304@itforchange.net>
 <1406591968.50647.YahooMailNeo@web172104.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-UxCYpHUZgLK3n95Lmsqi8Ws5gqsefN353tw3ZmfsrcQ@mail.gmail.com>

Good questions, Asama!

 ~mC


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:59 PM, International Ivission <
ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Quite an interesting report but the rapporteur did not tell us if the
> present configuration of the UN with five countries dominating the world
> will be not influence decisions on the new IG setup of WICANN.
> Another interesting element in the report is the complaint on the
> domination of the Internet ecosystem by American companies and the drop of
> EU companies from 12 to 8.  Innovation and creativity comes from the
> private sector. The question here is: Why the drop of EU companies, who is
> responsible?
> Where is the place of Africa, who cares?
> Is the Internet an EU-American rival thing?
>
>
>
> *___________________________________*
> *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 23
> Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama, My blog
> <http://excelasama.wordpress.com/>
> Web: www.ivission.net
> Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission
> Facebook: ivission.internationl
> <http://www.facebook.com/ivission.internationl>
> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission
> NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission
>
>
>   Le Lundi 28 juillet 2014 16h57, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> a
> écrit :
>
>
>
> On Monday 28 July 2014 07:45 PM, françoise wrote:
>
> Dear gov at list-ers,
> Please find  the link to a summary of the recent Report from the French
> Senate and the  pdf doc :
>
> http://www.senat.fr/fileadmin/Fichiers/Images/commission/MCI_nouvelle_gouvernance_de_l_internet/EUROPE_TO_THE_RESCUE_OF_THE_INTERNET_english_summary.pdf
>
>
> The points made in this report have great congruence with points made in
> the principles of the Just Net Coalition  at
> http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration
>
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>  It's an official Report, but who knows its destiny ???
> Best regards,
> FMF
>
>
>
>  Le 28 juil. 14 à 13:28, parminder a écrit :
>
>
> David
>
> I think that NTIA divesting itself of the IANA authority is a very good
> thing. However, withdrawal of direct executive control over the root zone
> is hardly enough. The root zone should be free from all legal and
> legislative controls of any one country, including any possibility of
> unilateral application any such control in the future. This is the single
> most important issue with regard to determining where should the IANA
> authority now vest.
>
> The reason I consider the NTIA transition process to be a sham is that its
> framing of the IANA issue is deliberately misleading. It misleadingly
> declares IANA 'function' to be  a merely clerical one. This is such an
> affront to the global community which knows very well that for the last 15
> years or so the single most prominent geopolitical issue in global Internet
> governance has been the issue of a single country's oversight of the
> Internet, representing in its IANA authority.
>
> How can this major political issue be rendered as a clerical and technical
> issue by a simple sleigh of hand. This to me is in fact cheating.
>
> However, the IANA process is being able to fool only those who are ready
> or even eager to be fooled. It does not actually take away one of the major
> global IG issues from the table. We all know that IANA authority will now
> be handed over to ICANN. Yes, US leaving the executive control over IANA is
> good. However, ICANN cannot be left politically unsupervised. (In fact, US
> jurisdiction will continue to undertake ICANN's political/ legal
> oversight.) ICANN should be incorporated under international law, giving it
> full immunity from US jurisdiction, and be put under clear rules based
> oversight of an appropriate global body, which need not be typical
> inter-governmental.
>
> And, yes, people have given specific institutional models to achieve this.
> See for instance the submission of Just Net Coalition to NetMundial at
> http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164
> . Specifically see point 3 of the proposed institutional roadmap.
>
> regards
> parminder
>
>
>
>  On Monday 28 July 2014 12:13 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> Parminder,
>
> On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:36 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>  I dont see why we should not already be seeking such a body
>
>  No one is stopping you (or whoever 'we' is in the above). You (or whoever 'we' is in the above) just need to come up with something that is at least as trusted by resolver operators of the world as the current system, then convince those operators to make use of that zone maintenance/signing/distribution system.
>
> My suspicion is that this will be a hard sell for a variety of reasons, however the first step is to actually come up with a proposal that resolver operators (not politicians) might look at and decide if they want to play along.
>
>
>  In fact we now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from the root file.
>
>  As far as I am aware, despite that court decision, .IR remains in the root and nothing has changed with respect to its registration information.
>
>
>  IANA transition issue is supposed to be basically about these huge current and impending problems.
>
>  My understanding of the transition of the stewardship of IANA is that it is about removing NTIA from its current role. That seems to be a more focused scope that what you believe the IANA transition is supposed to be about. I'm unsure where you derived your view of the IANA transition, but you might want to reread http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>
>
>  The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out right now in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil society should sit up and reflect about...
>
>  As far as I can tell, NTIA and the various folks involved in the transition appear to be are quite serious about wanting to remove NTIA from its current role. I'm unsure why you would consider it a 'sham' unless of course you're accusing the transition participants of not pursuing your personal view of the transition. If that is indeed the case, then I suspect the problem does not really lie with them.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>  Françoise Massit-Folléa
> f.massit at orange.fr
> Mob. 06 74 51 67 65
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/2377173a/attachment.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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Tue Jul 29 05:11:09 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:11:09 +0300
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
	<53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
	<097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
	<20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
	<CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba>
	<CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>

Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too is
composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then, Multistakeholder
is composed of three words

On 29/07/2014, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Interesting Deirdre.
>
> The Oxford Dictionary gives the word both meanings, with the one you mention
> tied specifically to gambling instances.
>
> But more broadly, it also defines stakeholder as
>
> "A person with an interest or concern in something"
>
> which I think works well for our context.
>
> Interestingly, the Oxford or any other dictionary does not yet define
> multistakeholder.
>
> Definitions seem to vary. According to Lawrence E. Strickling, U.S.
> Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, and NTIA
> Administrator, "the multistakeholder process, ... involves the full
> involvement of all stakeholders, consensus-based decision-making and
> operating in an open, transparent and accountable manner". So that seems to
> be what one product champion (US Government) seems to think it is.
>
> I think there is plenty of room for improvement and clarification there.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> From: Deirdre Williams
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:19 AM
> To: Internet Governance ; Ian Peter
> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
> tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
>
> Dear All,
> Responding to Ian's reminder, and to the discussion generally - what is a
> stake? who holds one? how/why do they hold it?
> Somewhere about 2004 (possibly earlier) it looks as if stakeholder and
> shareholder became confused (my conjecture, possibly through a shareholder
> being described as having a stake in a company?) Prior to that, stakeholder
> seems to have been seen "officially" as the neutral third party without a
> personal interest who holds the stakes or wagers until the matter of the bet
> is resolved. The term now seems to have flipped completely to mean someone
> with an interest of some type in the issue at hand. Perhaps the
> contradictory flip from "without personal interest" to "with personal
> interest" helps explain some of the difficulties with the term?
> So is a stake an interest?
> Is the holder a person or a group of people?
> I was discussing the second question last month with someone from this
> region (LAC) and he suggested the following answer -
> "Also from a practical standpoint, a group viewpoint would tend to carry
> more weight than an individual one so it would behove like-minded
> individuals to organise themselves in representing their views (e.g.
> individuals into civil society groups or even groups into lobbies). In
> addition, I also have the sense of multistakeholder as implying a  group of
> stakeholders of equal status. To my mind, this would work best if the
> substantive stakeholders are either groups or individuals, but not both
> together."
> This is my response to that issue:
> "There is an inherent inequality about this which is always overlooked.
> Corporations and organisations already have an existence. They are held
> together by existing structures. However the end users are an amorphous lot
> (as well as being the clear majority, all 3 billion of them) To require them
> to organise themselves so that they have the right to speak puts them at an
> extreme disadvantage, particularly considering the diversity of their
> opinions. An "innovative" thing about the Internet ... is that essentially
> it functions at the level of the individual. Perhaps we need to learn to use
> it at the level of the individual too. It's amazing how much prominence,
> within organisations, is given to physical meetings. The recent ICANN
> meeting in London was attended by about 3000 people: the constituency of the
> internet end user is 3 billion, a billion times bigger."
>
> If we can reach some sort of agreement on who or what a stakeholder is, then
> I think it will become easier to find consensus on multistakeholder process,
> or multistakeholderism.
> Sorry for the long message
> Deirdre
>
>
>
> On 27 July 2014 16:22, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>   Trying to go back to the original discussion -
>
>   I hear all the reasons why we can't avoid discussing equal footing. But
> the beginning here was the idea of a consensual statement on
> multistakeholderism - I think we should work on that, with as good a
> reference to equal footing as we can agree on at this stage, rather than
> divert to trying to develop a common position on what equal footing means.
>
>   Because I think we can get somewhere on a multistakeholderism statement.
>
>   Ian
>
>   From: Mawaki Chango
>   Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:58 AM
>   To: Internet Governance ; McTim
>   Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint
> Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
>
>
>   McTim,
>
>   You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
> from, the ITU/WSIS breed.
>   First of all, I'd contend that the constituency-based approach at ICANN
> was and still is an instance of MSism. Don't take my word for it; as soon as
> the WSIS process made the term 'multistakeholder' fashionable, we've heard
> it a lot reclaimed in ICANN's ranks. So much so that they have now
> re-devised their old constituency groupings into stakeholder groupings.
> However, as far as I know, ICANN only dealt with its direct stakeholders as
> organization, that is, the domain name industry, the technical community
> (security and stability aspects of the net), and the business, particularly
> via the lenses of IPR issues.
>
>   Yes, I'm aware of the very early failed attempt at direct voting by end
> users for their reps on the board of directors, but after that it took many
> years for the Noncommercial user constituency to be recognized (only as part
> of the GNSO community) and for ICANN itself to get the ALAC structures
> going. (Please feel free to correct me or complete if I'm missing any major
> aspect of things here; I'm just summarizing on the flight.) At the end of
> the day, constituencies and stakeholders at ICANN have also had to be
> divided into separate groupings with an identity label -- and so it was
> before WSIS started.
>
>   Was that then a perfect instance of MSism which ITU-WSIS came to spoil? I
> just once to have this clarified once for all as to what you exactly mean
> everything you point to ITU as having put the worm in the fruit (or whatever
> colloquialism I'm missing to remember correctly here) by delineating
> stakeholder groups as it did during the WSIS process.
>
>   Beyond that, I'd also appreciate if you can give references or pointers to
> any clear formulations (e.g, RFC or excerpt of charter, of rules and
> operating procedures of relevant groups, or other informal text that may
> have served for guidance in implementing MSism, etc.) of instances of MSism
> you deem successful or which should be taken as reference (such as any
> version of "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+
> decades.") My apologies if that has been done before, as I suspect it could
> have.
>
>
>   Thanks and cheers,
>
>
>   Mawaki
>
>
>
>   On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>
>
>     On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>     > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 07:44:26 -0700
>     > "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>     >
>     >> In other words "equal footing for foxes and hens", sounds pretty
> good
>     >> in theory, in practice not so good (for the hens... exceptionally
>     >> good for the foxes...
>     >
>     > Equal footing means that the hens must not use their wings to try to
>     > escape?
>     >
>     > SCNR (=Sorry, could not resist.)
>     >
>     > On a more serious note, how should the following be classified?
>     >
>     > During the drafting process for the Paris WSIS+10 outcome document,
> the
>     > UNESCO guy running the process essentially simply turned deaf ears to
>     > the proposal to include a reference to the civil society WSIS
>     > declaration alongside the governmental one.
>
>
>
>     We have to keep in mind that the "MS" IG processes which emanate from
>     Geneva are not the same sort of MSism that built and developed the
>     Internet for the last 3+ decades.  Those are the models we should be
>     using, NOT the ones that come from Geneva.
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

The best athletes never started as the best athletes.
You have to think anyway, so why not think big? - Donald Trump.
"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky.
Tackle the biggest frog first.
I will persist until I succeed - Og Mandino.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 29 05:20:59 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:20:59 +0000
Subject: [governance] re: stakeholder
In-Reply-To: <53D75FCD.2090106@acm.org>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D75FCD.2090106@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8Dyx8sD+hXyX0ApCj1L4yg9_zHNMEKJMoM315uV23E2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 28-Jul-14 17:19, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>
> > Responding to Ian's reminder, and to the discussion generally - what
> >  is a stake? who holds one? how/why do they hold it?
>
> Sometime a word is just a word.
>
> All words have many uses and definitions, and yes, the old origin of the
> word was someone who held the stakes (wagers) in a bet.  The usage I
> tend toward (though I am sure i could quibble over the words, but it
> comes close, come from project management.
>
> This one is from
> <http://www.projectmanagementdocs.com/blog/what-is-a-stakeholder.html>
>
> but it is only one of a many similar reference that can be found.
>
> > " Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who
> > can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be
> > individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations,
> > or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively
> > involved in a project's work, affected by the project's outcome, or
> > in a position to affect the project's success. "
>
>
> In this case the project is the Internet, its health as an open and
> global resource including its extension beyond the digital divide to all
> the world's people.
>
> It would probably be a good idea to specialize the definition for use in
> Ig discussions,


+1
The problem, as I see it, is not the definition of the basic concept that
is at the center of the complex problem we're dealing with, as much as it
is the challenges that pertain to its operationalization.

First of all, we have _multi_ stakeholders -- How do we identify them? Who
get to identify them? What are the requirements to be a stakeholder? How do
we make sure that those requirements are not being excessively
disadvantageous to some while being exclusively advantageous to some others?

Secondly, I note that "individuals" are pretty much present in the
definition being borrowed from project management. But how do we scale that
up for a global resource/project? Where are the individuals in "our" brand
of multistakeholderism? At this point, one can argue that the notion of
"democratic stakeholder" does a better job at clarity -- it is the
individual citizen (even if many of them may form groups that find more or
less interest in this or that outcome resulting from the participation of
the individuals.) We know the stakeholder grouping has been one of the
major source of concerns and contention, particularly in terms of their
varied levels of influence.

The problem with multistakeholderism will not be resolved until the
question of the relation(ship) between stakeholders, in terms of their
influence on the process, is addressed satisfactorily to most people. Since
we always be told that it is voluntary to become stakeholder but it is the
way and manner in which every and all stakeholders --assuming all have the
same ease of access and they invest equal attention into the process-- are
listened to, heard and responded to that will make all the difference.

Mawaki



> but that is the general idea I have in mind when I use it.
>
> And in all of this, I can only speak for my understandings.
>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/3e9c723d/attachment.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 kichango at gmail.com  Tue Jul 29 06:24:39 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:24:39 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>

 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:

> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too is
> composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then, Multistakeholder
> is composed of three words
>

It's a totally different question as to whether "mutistakeholderism" needs
to be defined despite being made up of parts that are familiar. And I think
all definition questions boil down to people struggling to understand
precisely what "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.

Mawaki
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/01ae7061/attachment.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 nnenna75 at gmail.com  Tue Jul 29 09:34:15 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:34:15 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>

Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?

Just asking

N


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>
>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too is
>> composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then, Multistakeholder
>> is composed of three words
>>
>
> It's a totally different question as to whether "mutistakeholderism" needs
> to be defined despite being made up of parts that are familiar. And I think
> all definition questions boil down to people struggling to understand
> precisely what "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
>
> Mawaki
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/19701736/attachment.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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Tue Jul 29 09:46:25 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:46:25 +0300
Subject: [governance] re: stakeholder
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8Dyx8sD+hXyX0ApCj1L4yg9_zHNMEKJMoM315uV23E2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
	<53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
	<87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
	<53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
	<097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
	<20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
	<CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba>
	<CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D75FCD.2090106@acm.org>
	<CACTo+v8Dyx8sD+hXyX0ApCj1L4yg9_zHNMEKJMoM315uV23E2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwrhKmuephPNPdEbPWYTtp8vFpNbJtX0W=x0MhC768g9tg@mail.gmail.com>

Democratic stakeholder to me complicates things more. Democracy is all
about numbers, number of people, amount of money controlled which all
amounts to power. Democracy then skews the balance of power towards
those stakeholders who hold the instruments of power. Democracy
ensures the voice of the minority is not heard.

On 29/07/2014, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 28-Jul-14 17:19, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>
>> > Responding to Ian's reminder, and to the discussion generally - what
>> >  is a stake? who holds one? how/why do they hold it?
>>
>> Sometime a word is just a word.
>>
>> All words have many uses and definitions, and yes, the old origin of the
>> word was someone who held the stakes (wagers) in a bet.  The usage I
>> tend toward (though I am sure i could quibble over the words, but it
>> comes close, come from project management.
>>
>> This one is from
>> <http://www.projectmanagementdocs.com/blog/what-is-a-stakeholder.html>
>>
>> but it is only one of a many similar reference that can be found.
>>
>> > " Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who
>> > can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be
>> > individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations,
>> > or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively
>> > involved in a project's work, affected by the project's outcome, or
>> > in a position to affect the project's success. "
>>
>>
>> In this case the project is the Internet, its health as an open and
>> global resource including its extension beyond the digital divide to all
>> the world's people.
>>
>> It would probably be a good idea to specialize the definition for use in
>> Ig discussions,
>
>
> +1
> The problem, as I see it, is not the definition of the basic concept that
> is at the center of the complex problem we're dealing with, as much as it
> is the challenges that pertain to its operationalization.
>
> First of all, we have _multi_ stakeholders -- How do we identify them? Who
> get to identify them? What are the requirements to be a stakeholder? How do
> we make sure that those requirements are not being excessively
> disadvantageous to some while being exclusively advantageous to some
> others?
>
> Secondly, I note that "individuals" are pretty much present in the
> definition being borrowed from project management. But how do we scale that
> up for a global resource/project? Where are the individuals in "our" brand
> of multistakeholderism? At this point, one can argue that the notion of
> "democratic stakeholder" does a better job at clarity -- it is the
> individual citizen (even if many of them may form groups that find more or
> less interest in this or that outcome resulting from the participation of
> the individuals.) We know the stakeholder grouping has been one of the
> major source of concerns and contention, particularly in terms of their
> varied levels of influence.
>
> The problem with multistakeholderism will not be resolved until the
> question of the relation(ship) between stakeholders, in terms of their
> influence on the process, is addressed satisfactorily to most people. Since
> we always be told that it is voluntary to become stakeholder but it is the
> way and manner in which every and all stakeholders --assuming all have the
> same ease of access and they invest equal attention into the process-- are
> listened to, heard and responded to that will make all the difference.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>> but that is the general idea I have in mind when I use it.
>>
>> And in all of this, I can only speak for my understandings.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

The best athletes never started as the best athletes.
You have to think anyway, so why not think big? - Donald Trump.
"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky.
Tackle the biggest frog first.
I will persist until I succeed - Og Mandino.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 29 10:16:19 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:16:19 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>

I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on "definition'.) Note:
at times some may also refer to it as working definition, whatever
designation people are comfortable with works fine for me, but I like the
modest and cooperative tone in "common understanding".

Mawaki


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
>
> Just asking
>
> N
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too is
>>> composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then, Multistakeholder
>>> is composed of three words
>>>
>>
>> It's a totally different question as to whether "mutistakeholderism"
>> needs to be defined despite being made up of parts that are familiar. And I
>> think all definition questions boil down to people struggling to understand
>> precisely what "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/8b4364e8/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue Jul 29 10:31:09 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:31:09 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
	<53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
	<097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
	<20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
	<CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba>
	<CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba>
	<CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140729163109.439fa0fd@quill>

I'm not so sure that “common understanding” is really so much more
modest than “definition”. It is common for multiple definitions to
co-exist, but multiple “common understandings”?

One way to work towards clarity of communication when there are
multiple understandings is to add qualifiers. For example, useful
labels may be: “equal-footing multistakeholderism”, “open-participation
multistakeholderism”, “Geneva-style multistakeholdersm”, “democratic
multistakeholderism”, etc.

Personally, I have a definition for “democratic multistakeholderism” at 
http://sustainability.oriented.systems/democratic-multistakeholderism/
and I would greatly appreciate if others would also somehow label and
define their preferred understanding or model of multistakeholderism.

Greetings,
Norbert





On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:16:19 +0000
Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
> sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on "definition'.)
> Note: at times some may also refer to it as working definition,
> whatever designation people are comfortable with works fine for me,
> but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common understanding".
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
> >
> > Just asking
> >
> > N
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
> >> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
> >>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
> >>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
> >>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's a totally different question as to whether
> >> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
> >> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions boil
> >> down to people struggling to understand precisely what
> >> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
> >>
> >> Mawaki
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To 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 Jul 29 10:31:29 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com>

+1 for common understanding.
Deirdre


On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
> sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on "definition'.) Note:
> at times some may also refer to it as working definition, whatever
> designation people are comfortable with works fine for me, but I like the
> modest and cooperative tone in "common understanding".
>
> Mawaki
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
>>
>> Just asking
>>
>> N
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
>>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
>>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too is
>>>> composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then, Multistakeholder
>>>> is composed of three words
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a totally different question as to whether "mutistakeholderism"
>>> needs to be defined despite being made up of parts that are familiar. And I
>>> think all definition questions boil down to people struggling to understand
>>> precisely what "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
>>>
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/087dcbe3/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue Jul 29 10:47:01 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:47:01 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
	<53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
	<097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
	<20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
	<CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba>
	<CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba>
	<CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill>

Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
“multistakeholderism” differently.

Greetings,
Norbert

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for common understanding.
> Deirdre
> 
> 
> On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
> > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
> > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
> > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
> > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
> > understanding".
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
> > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
> >>
> >> Just asking
> >>
> >> N
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
> >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
> >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
> >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
> >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
> >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
> >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
> >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
> >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
> >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
> >>>
> >>> Mawaki
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>> To 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  Tue Jul 29 11:05:16 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:05:16 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com> <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com>

I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and only
on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in this
thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common
understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to as
well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common
understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such
outcome.

Are we there yet?

Mawaki



On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
> think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
> point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
> understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
> to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
> "multistakeholderism" differently.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for common understanding.
> > Deirdre
> >
> >
> > On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
> > > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
> > > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
> > > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
> > > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
> > > understanding".
> > >
> > > Mawaki
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
> > > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
> > >>
> > >> Just asking
> > >>
> > >> N
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
> > >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
> > >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
> > >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
> > >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
> > >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
> > >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
> > >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
> > >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
> > >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mawaki
> > >>>
> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >>>
> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > >>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/f7cd5813/attachment.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Jul 29 11:36:59 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:36:59 -0400
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill> <CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com>

I have a suggestion which I hope won't be considered too flippant. There's
a game, at least in English, for whiling away long car journeys, in which
the participants take turns to suggest adjectives, in alphabetical order,
for "the parson's cat".
Our "parson's cat" is "multistakeholderism"
My turn first - I suggest that an attribute of multistakeholderism is
"inclusive", that we share a common understanding that multistakeholderism
is (or should be) a way towards more inclusive participation in the IG
debate and decision making.
Next person - either suggest another attribute that you think we perceive
in common, or take what I proposed and qualify it as you think necessary -
"but ....", or both.
This way we can build up a list of attributes in common while at the same
time being made aware of the reservations and exceptions that people may
have.
Could that work?
Deirdre


On 29 July 2014 11:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and
> only on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in this
> thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common
> understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to as
> well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common
> understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such
> outcome.
>
> Are we there yet?
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
>> think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
>> point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
>> understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
>> to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
>> “multistakeholderism” differently.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 for common understanding.
>> > Deirdre
>> >
>> >
>> > On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
>> > > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
>> > > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
>> > > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
>> > > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
>> > > understanding".
>> > >
>> > > Mawaki
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
>> > > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
>> > >>
>> > >> Just asking
>> > >>
>> > >> N
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
>> > >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
>> > >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
>> > >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
>> > >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
>> > >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
>> > >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
>> > >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
>> > >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
>> > >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Mawaki
>> > >>>
>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >>>
>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > >>> To 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/1da1ab83/attachment.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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Tue Jul 29 12:32:59 2014
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:32:59 +0300
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
	<53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
	<097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
	<20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
	<CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba>
	<CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba>
	<CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill>
	<CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwoDUcU7nrAfkaRk4kF4-UJ2z1XVP-QrqfV9hKWxAAM2bw@mail.gmail.com>

Consensus based: we debate for days trying to find common ground which
is usually elusive

On 29/07/2014, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a suggestion which I hope won't be considered too flippant. There's
> a game, at least in English, for whiling away long car journeys, in which
> the participants take turns to suggest adjectives, in alphabetical order,
> for "the parson's cat".
> Our "parson's cat" is "multistakeholderism"
> My turn first - I suggest that an attribute of multistakeholderism is
> "inclusive", that we share a common understanding that multistakeholderism
> is (or should be) a way towards more inclusive participation in the IG
> debate and decision making.
> Next person - either suggest another attribute that you think we perceive
> in common, or take what I proposed and qualify it as you think necessary -
> "but ....", or both.
> This way we can build up a list of attributes in common while at the same
> time being made aware of the reservations and exceptions that people may
> have.
> Could that work?
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 29 July 2014 11:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and
>> only on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in
>> this
>> thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common
>> understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to
>> as
>> well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common
>> understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such
>> outcome.
>>
>> Are we there yet?
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
>>> think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
>>> point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
>>> understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
>>> to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
>>> "multistakeholderism" differently.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
>>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1 for common understanding.
>>> > Deirdre
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
>>> > > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
>>> > > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
>>> > > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
>>> > > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
>>> > > understanding".
>>> > >
>>> > > Mawaki
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
>>> > > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Just asking
>>> > >>
>>> > >> N
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
>>> > >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
>>> > >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
>>> > >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
>>> > >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
>>> > >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
>>> > >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
>>> > >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
>>> > >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
>>> > >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Mawaki
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> > >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> > >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> > >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > >>> To 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>


-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh

The best athletes never started as the best athletes.
You have to think anyway, so why not think big? - Donald Trump.
"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky.
Tackle the biggest frog first.
I will persist until I succeed - Og Mandino.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Jul 29 18:13:56 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:13:56 +1000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>   <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill> <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com> <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com> <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill> <CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <37472E8C242B4E469B70062858724789@Toshiba>

Here’s what was agreed to at Netmundial. I personally have no problem with any of this, does anyone?

What I think we need to add to this comes from the discussion Parminder started, in response to Avri’s posting, as regards limits to multistakeholder application to final decision making in some instances. But if we are all happy with what is below, we have a very good start. We could then look at the areas where we see limits to applicability and the need for further clarification.

Ian Peter


FROM NETMUNDIAL

INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES
 Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, 
multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable 
participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, 
civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 
interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.

 Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of 
international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance 
arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all 
stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent 
possible.

 Transparent: Decisions made must be easy to understand, processes must 
be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures, and procedures must 
be developed and agreed upon through multistakeholder processes.

 Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as 
for review and redress should exist. Governments have primary, legal and 
political accountability for the protection of human rights

 Inclusive and equitable: Internet governance institutions and processes 
should be inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes, 
including decision making, should be bottom-up, enabling the full involvement 
of all stakeholders, in a way that does not disadvantage any category of 
stakeholder.

 Distributed: Internet Governance should be carried out through a distributed, 
decentralized and multistakeholder ecosystem.

 Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage 
collaborative and cooperative approaches that reflect the inputs and interests 
of stakeholders.

 Enabling meaningful participation: Anyone affected by an Internet 
governance process should be able to participate in that process. Particularly, 
Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity 
building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries 
and underrepresented groups.



From: Deirdre Williams 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 AM
To: Internet Governance ; Mawaki Chango 
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

I have a suggestion which I hope won't be considered too flippant. There's a game, at least in English, for whiling away long car journeys, in which the participants take turns to suggest adjectives, in alphabetical order, for "the parson's cat". 
Our "parson's cat" is "multistakeholderism"
My turn first - I suggest that an attribute of multistakeholderism is "inclusive", that we share a common understanding that multistakeholderism is (or should be) a way towards more inclusive participation in the IG debate and decision making.
Next person - either suggest another attribute that you think we perceive in common, or take what I proposed and qualify it as you think necessary - "but ....", or both.
This way we can build up a list of attributes in common while at the same time being made aware of the reservations and exceptions that people may have.
Could that work?
Deirdre



On 29 July 2014 11:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

  I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and only on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in this thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to as well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such outcome.

  Are we there yet?

  Mawaki 





  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

    Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
    think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
    point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
    understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
    to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
    “multistakeholderism” differently.

    Greetings,
    Norbert


    On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
    Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

    > +1 for common understanding.
    > Deirdre
    >
    >
    > On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
    > > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
    > > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
    > > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
    > > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
    > > understanding".
    > >
    > > Mawaki
    > >
    > >
    > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
    > > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
    > >>
    > >> Just asking
    > >>
    > >> N
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
    > >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
    > >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
    > >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
    > >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
    > >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
    > >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
    > >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
    > >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
    > >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
    > >>>
    > >>> Mawaki
    > >>>
    > >>> ____________________________________________________________
    > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    > >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
    > >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
    > >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
    > >>>
    > >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
    > >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
    > >>> To 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






-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140730/52c7fe5d/attachment.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 nnenna75 at gmail.com  Tue Jul 29 18:29:33 2014
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 22:29:33 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <37472E8C242B4E469B70062858724789@Toshiba>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill> <CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com> <37472E8C242B4E469B70062858724789@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CADFgh12hgnKbHArTFHTSnOy=Ab9r=zmhotXCcbXq6hFBiRJR_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks, Ian.

There was also:
Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial:
Several contributions to NETmundial identified the following non-exhaustive
list of points that need better understanding and further discussion in
appropriate fora:
 Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet
governance,
including the meaning and application of *equal footing.*
 Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance.
 Benchmarking systems and related indicators regarding the application of
Internet governance principles.
 Net neutrality.


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Here’s what was agreed to at Netmundial. I personally have no problem
> with any of this, does anyone?
>
> What I think we need to add to this comes from the discussion Parminder
> started, in response to Avri’s posting, as regards limits to
> multistakeholder application to final decision making in some instances.
> But if we are all happy with what is below, we have a very good start. We
> could then look at the areas where we see limits to applicability and the
> need for further clarification.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
> FROM NETMUNDIAL
>
> INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES
>  Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic,
> multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable
> participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private
> sector,
> civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
> The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be
> interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under
> discussion.
>
>  Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of
> international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance
> arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all
> stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent
> possible.
>
>  Transparent: Decisions made must be easy to understand, processes must
> be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures, and procedures must
> be developed and agreed upon through multistakeholder processes.
>
>  Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as
> for review and redress should exist. Governments have primary, legal and
> political accountability for the protection of human rights
>
>  Inclusive and equitable: Internet governance institutions and processes
> should be inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes,
> including decision making, should be bottom-up, enabling the full
> involvement
> of all stakeholders, in a way that does not disadvantage any category of
> stakeholder.
>
>  Distributed: Internet Governance should be carried out through a
> distributed,
> decentralized and multistakeholder ecosystem.
>
>  Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage
> collaborative and cooperative approaches that reflect the inputs and
> interests
> of stakeholders.
>
>  Enabling meaningful participation: Anyone affected by an Internet
> governance process should be able to participate in that process.
> Particularly,
> Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity
> building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries
> and underrepresented groups.
>
>
>
>  *From:* Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; Mawaki Chango
> <kichango at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint
> Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
>
>  I have a suggestion which I hope won't be considered too flippant.
> There's a game, at least in English, for whiling away long car journeys, in
> which the participants take turns to suggest adjectives, in alphabetical
> order, for "the parson's cat".
> Our "parson's cat" is "multistakeholderism"
> My turn first - I suggest that an attribute of multistakeholderism is
> "inclusive", that we share a common understanding that multistakeholderism
> is (or should be) a way towards more inclusive participation in the IG
> debate and decision making.
> Next person - either suggest another attribute that you think we perceive
> in common, or take what I proposed and qualify it as you think necessary -
> "but ....", or both.
> This way we can build up a list of attributes in common while at the same
> time being made aware of the reservations and exceptions that people may
> have.
> Could that work?
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 29 July 2014 11:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and
>> only on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in this
>> thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common
>> understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to as
>> well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common
>> understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such
>> outcome.
>>
>> Are we there yet?
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
>>> think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
>>> point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
>>> understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
>>> to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
>>> “multistakeholderism” differently.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
>>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1 for common understanding.
>>> > Deirdre
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
>>> > > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
>>> > > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
>>> > > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
>>> > > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
>>> > > understanding".
>>> > >
>>> > > Mawaki
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
>>> > > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Just asking
>>> > >>
>>> > >> N
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
>>> > >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
>>> > >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
>>> > >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
>>> > >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
>>> > >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
>>> > >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
>>> > >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
>>> > >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
>>> > >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Mawaki
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> > >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> > >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> > >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > >>> To 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140729/05494873/attachment.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Jul 29 19:46:27 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:46:27 +1000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12hgnKbHArTFHTSnOy=Ab9r=zmhotXCcbXq6hFBiRJR_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>   <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com> <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com> <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill> <CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com> <37472E8C242B4E469B70062858724789@Toshiba> <CADFgh12hgnKbHArTFHTSnOy=Ab9r=zmhotXCcbXq6hFBiRJR_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A5F8A5A4B7664233ACB6AB4EE91CEE5A@Toshiba>

Thanks Nnenna. So if we start to compile a list of issues related to multistakeholderism, these would include

1. roles and responsibilities, including the meaning and application of equal footing
2. jurisdictional issues
3. applicability to final decision responsibility in various areas
4. consensus and the ability of any one one stakeholder or stakeholder group to block progress based on self-interest

(these are all interrelated)

I don’t know if everyone here is used to dealing with issues lists. To me an issues list (based on practice in project management) is a list of areas where we have no immediate solution, and where we need further discussion and clarification. Some carry very high risk, some are minor. I would classify all of the above issues as being a high risk in multistakeholder practice. 



Ian 

From: Nnenna Nwakanma 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:29 AM
To: Governance 
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

Many thanks, Ian.


There was also:
Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial:
Several contributions to NETmundial identified the following non-exhaustive list of points that need better understanding and further discussion in appropriate fora:
 Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance,
including the meaning and application of equal footing.
 Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance.
 Benchmarking systems and related indicators regarding the application of
Internet governance principles.
 Net neutrality.




On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

  Here’s what was agreed to at Netmundial. I personally have no problem with any of this, does anyone?

  What I think we need to add to this comes from the discussion Parminder started, in response to Avri’s posting, as regards limits to multistakeholder application to final decision making in some instances. But if we are all happy with what is below, we have a very good start. We could then look at the areas where we see limits to applicability and the need for further clarification.

  Ian Peter


  FROM NETMUNDIAL

  INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES
   Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, 
  multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable 
  participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, 
  civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
  The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 
  interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.

   Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of 
  international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance 
  arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all 
  stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent 
  possible.

   Transparent: Decisions made must be easy to understand, processes must 
  be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures, and procedures must 
  be developed and agreed upon through multistakeholder processes.

   Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as 
  for review and redress should exist. Governments have primary, legal and 
  political accountability for the protection of human rights

   Inclusive and equitable: Internet governance institutions and processes 
  should be inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes, 
  including decision making, should be bottom-up, enabling the full involvement 
  of all stakeholders, in a way that does not disadvantage any category of 
  stakeholder.

   Distributed: Internet Governance should be carried out through a distributed, 
  decentralized and multistakeholder ecosystem.

   Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage 
  collaborative and cooperative approaches that reflect the inputs and interests 
  of stakeholders.

   Enabling meaningful participation: Anyone affected by an Internet 
  governance process should be able to participate in that process. Particularly, 
  Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity 
  building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries 
  and underrepresented groups.



  From: Deirdre Williams 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 AM
  To: Internet Governance ; Mawaki Chango 
  Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

  I have a suggestion which I hope won't be considered too flippant. There's a game, at least in English, for whiling away long car journeys, in which the participants take turns to suggest adjectives, in alphabetical order, for "the parson's cat". 
  Our "parson's cat" is "multistakeholderism"
  My turn first - I suggest that an attribute of multistakeholderism is "inclusive", that we share a common understanding that multistakeholderism is (or should be) a way towards more inclusive participation in the IG debate and decision making.
  Next person - either suggest another attribute that you think we perceive in common, or take what I proposed and qualify it as you think necessary - "but ....", or both.
  This way we can build up a list of attributes in common while at the same time being made aware of the reservations and exceptions that people may have.
  Could that work?
  Deirdre



  On 29 July 2014 11:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

    I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and only on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in this thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to as well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such outcome.

    Are we there yet?

    Mawaki 





    On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

      Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
      think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
      point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
      understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
      to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
      “multistakeholderism” differently.

      Greetings,
      Norbert


      On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
      Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

      > +1 for common understanding.
      > Deirdre
      >
      >
      > On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
      >
      > > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
      > > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
      > > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
      > > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
      > > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
      > > understanding".
      > >
      > > Mawaki
      > >
      > >
      > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
      > > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
      > >
      > >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
      > >>
      > >> Just asking
      > >>
      > >> N
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
      > >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
      > >>
      > >>>
      > >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
      > >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
      > >>>
      > >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
      > >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
      > >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
      > >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
      > >>>>
      > >>>
      > >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
      > >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
      > >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
      > >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
      > >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
      > >>>
      > >>> Mawaki
      > >>>
      > >>> ____________________________________________________________
      > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      > >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
      > >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
      > >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
      > >>>
      > >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
      > >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
      > >>> To 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






  -- 
  “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
  To be removed from the list, visit:
       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

  For all other list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
  To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140730/05c65c25/attachment.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Jul 30 01:33:26 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:33:26 +1000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <A5F8A5A4B7664233ACB6AB4EE91CEE5A@Toshiba>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>   <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com> <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com> <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill> <CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com> <37472E8C242B4E469B70062858724789@Toshiba> <CADFgh12hgnKbHArTFHTSnOy=Ab9r=zmhotXCcbXq6hFBiRJR_Q@mail.gmail.com> <A5F8A5A4B7664233ACB6AB4EE91CEE5A@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <8D8101861D4549EEA99826ECE3F1FFF9@Toshiba>

A couple of things we might want to argue for as basic principles occur to me as I read these issues.

1. Nothing in multistakeholder governance overrides the sovereignty of nation states when it comes to purely national issues (we may as well agree to something like that, because nation states will insist on it anyway and we will get a lot more common sense if we include a reference to”purely national issues”.

2. In matters where pecuniary interests or individual national sovereignty interests are involved, it is important in the multistakeholder model for affected parties to both declare these interests and to agree not to block what would otherwise be a global consensus on policy to deal with such issues.

Just a couple of thoughts – others may have better wording, but it would be good to embed a few such principles in a path forward. Without the second one, for example, multistakeholderism is a farce.

Ian Peter

From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:46 AM
To: Nnenna Nwakanma ; Governance 
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

Thanks Nnenna. So if we start to compile a list of issues related to multistakeholderism, these would include

1. roles and responsibilities, including the meaning and application of equal footing
2. jurisdictional issues
3. applicability to final decision responsibility in various areas
4. consensus and the ability of any one one stakeholder or stakeholder group to block progress based on self-interest

(these are all interrelated)

I don’t know if everyone here is used to dealing with issues lists. To me an issues list (based on practice in project management) is a list of areas where we have no immediate solution, and where we need further discussion and clarification. Some carry very high risk, some are minor. I would classify all of the above issues as being a high risk in multistakeholder practice. 



Ian 

From: Nnenna Nwakanma 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:29 AM
To: Governance 
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

Many thanks, Ian.


There was also:
Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial:
Several contributions to NETmundial identified the following non-exhaustive list of points that need better understanding and further discussion in appropriate fora:
 Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance,
including the meaning and application of equal footing.
 Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance.
 Benchmarking systems and related indicators regarding the application of
Internet governance principles.
 Net neutrality.




On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

  Here’s what was agreed to at Netmundial. I personally have no problem with any of this, does anyone?

  What I think we need to add to this comes from the discussion Parminder started, in response to Avri’s posting, as regards limits to multistakeholder application to final decision making in some instances. But if we are all happy with what is below, we have a very good start. We could then look at the areas where we see limits to applicability and the need for further clarification.

  Ian Peter


  FROM NETMUNDIAL

  INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES
   Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, 
  multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable 
  participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, 
  civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.
  The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 
  interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.

   Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of 
  international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance 
  arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all 
  stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent 
  possible.

   Transparent: Decisions made must be easy to understand, processes must 
  be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures, and procedures must 
  be developed and agreed upon through multistakeholder processes.

   Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as 
  for review and redress should exist. Governments have primary, legal and 
  political accountability for the protection of human rights

   Inclusive and equitable: Internet governance institutions and processes 
  should be inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes, 
  including decision making, should be bottom-up, enabling the full involvement 
  of all stakeholders, in a way that does not disadvantage any category of 
  stakeholder.

   Distributed: Internet Governance should be carried out through a distributed, 
  decentralized and multistakeholder ecosystem.

   Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage 
  collaborative and cooperative approaches that reflect the inputs and interests 
  of stakeholders.

   Enabling meaningful participation: Anyone affected by an Internet 
  governance process should be able to participate in that process. Particularly, 
  Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity 
  building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries 
  and underrepresented groups.



  From: Deirdre Williams 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 AM
  To: Internet Governance ; Mawaki Chango 
  Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

  I have a suggestion which I hope won't be considered too flippant. There's a game, at least in English, for whiling away long car journeys, in which the participants take turns to suggest adjectives, in alphabetical order, for "the parson's cat". 
  Our "parson's cat" is "multistakeholderism"
  My turn first - I suggest that an attribute of multistakeholderism is "inclusive", that we share a common understanding that multistakeholderism is (or should be) a way towards more inclusive participation in the IG debate and decision making.
  Next person - either suggest another attribute that you think we perceive in common, or take what I proposed and qualify it as you think necessary - "but ....", or both.
  This way we can build up a list of attributes in common while at the same time being made aware of the reservations and exceptions that people may have.
  Could that work?
  Deirdre



  On 29 July 2014 11:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

    I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and only on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in this thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to as well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such outcome.

    Are we there yet?

    Mawaki 





    On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

      Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
      think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
      point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
      understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
      to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
      “multistakeholderism” differently.

      Greetings,
      Norbert


      On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
      Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

      > +1 for common understanding.
      > Deirdre
      >
      >
      > On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
      >
      > > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
      > > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
      > > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
      > > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
      > > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
      > > understanding".
      > >
      > > Mawaki
      > >
      > >
      > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
      > > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
      > >
      > >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
      > >>
      > >> Just asking
      > >>
      > >> N
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
      > >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
      > >>
      > >>>
      > >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
      > >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
      > >>>
      > >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
      > >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
      > >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
      > >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
      > >>>>
      > >>>
      > >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
      > >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
      > >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
      > >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
      > >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
      > >>>
      > >>> Mawaki
      > >>>
      > >>> ____________________________________________________________
      > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      > >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
      > >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
      > >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
      > >>>
      > >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
      > >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
      > >>> To 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






  -- 
  “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
  To be removed from the list, visit:
       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

  For all other list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
  To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140730/c7f4dfa1/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 10:20:10 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:20:10 -0500
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> McTim,
>
> You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
> from, the ITU/WSIS breed.

I've never made that point.  I HAVE however consistently pointed out
that what goes on in Geneva is "meta-IG" and that BUTOC (Bottom Up,
Transparent, Open, Consensus-based) processes are far superior to
those where governments have a greater role than anyone else.


> First of all, I'd contend that the constituency-based approach at ICANN was
> and still is an instance of MSism.

It's a type of MSism, certainly, but the "representation" and
Stakholder Groupings make it far more like Geneva based processes than
the "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+
decades" that I referred to earlier.


 Don't take my word for it; as soon as the
> WSIS process made the term 'multistakeholder' fashionable, we've heard it a
> lot reclaimed in ICANN's ranks. So much so that they have now re-devised
> their old constituency groupings into stakeholder groupings. However, as far
> as I know, ICANN only dealt with its direct stakeholders as organization,
> that is, the domain name industry, the technical community (security and
> stability aspects of the net), and the business, particularly via the lenses
> of IPR issues.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the very early failed attempt at direct voting by end
> users for their reps on the board of directors, but after that it took many
> years for the Noncommercial user constituency to be recognized (only as part
> of the GNSO community) and for ICANN itself to get the ALAC structures
> going. (Please feel free to correct me or complete if I'm missing any major
> aspect of things here; I'm just summarizing on the flight.) At the end of
> the day, constituencies and stakeholders at ICANN have also had to be
> divided into separate groupings with an identity label -- and so it was
> before WSIS started.
>
> Was that then a perfect instance of MSism which ITU-WSIS came to spoil? I
> just once to have this clarified once for all as to what you exactly mean
> everything you point to ITU as having put the worm in the fruit (or whatever
> colloquialism I'm missing to remember correctly here) by delineating
> stakeholder groups as it did during the WSIS process.
>
> Beyond that, I'd also appreciate if you can give references or pointers to
> any clear formulations (e.g, RFC or excerpt of charter, of rules and
> operating procedures of relevant groups, or other informal text that may
> have served for guidance in implementing MSism, etc.) of instances of MSism
> you deem successful or which should be taken as reference (such as any
> version of "MSism that built and developed the Internet for the last 3+
> decades.")

The RFC process itself is a good place to start:

http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_InternetStandardsandtheRequestForCommentRFCProcess.htm

here is another from your region:

http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development

some pretty pictures here;

https://www.apnic.net/policy/policy-environment

-- 
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 Jul 30 10:36:08 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 07:36:08 -0700
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <37472E8C242B4E469B70062858724789@Toshiba>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
   <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill> <CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com> <37472E8C242B4E469B70062858724789@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <17b301cfac03$9adba900$d092fb00$@gmail.com>

Two comments on this below…

 

The first is that the ``Multistakeholder`` description includes ``users`` but not ``non-users`` i.e. everyone else… 

 

Since for better or for worse everyone in the world is now impacted in one way or another by the Internet whether they are ``users`` or not, some means for eliciting/facilitating/enabling participation in these processes by (current) non-users must be included in these formulations. That such was not provided for in the original NetMundial statement is I think a significant and negative reflection on the ultimate composition of the NetMundial meeting itself and particularly of those who drafted the statement.

 

The second is that I would have thought that you should have included in your statement the commitment from the NetMundial document that the Internet is to be ``managed in the public interest``… It seems to me that this statement provides a basic metric against which to measure all subsequent formulations and outputs including those of the IGF even in the absence of any clear agreement on what might be specifically meant by this phrase.

 

M

 

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:14 PM
To: Deirdre Williams; Internet Governance; Mawaki Chango
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

 

Here’s what was agreed to at Netmundial. I personally have no problem with any of this, does anyone?

 

What I think we need to add to this comes from the discussion Parminder started, in response to Avri’s posting, as regards limits to multistakeholder application to final decision making in some instances. But if we are all happy with what is below, we have a very good start. We could then look at the areas where we see limits to applicability and the need for further clarification.

 

Ian Peter

 

 

FROM NETMUNDIAL

 

INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES

· Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, 

multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable 

participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, 

civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.

The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 

interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.

 

· Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of 

international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance 

arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all 

stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent 

possible.

 

· Transparent: Decisions made must be easy to understand, processes must 

be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures, and procedures must 

be developed and agreed upon through multistakeholder processes.

 

· Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as 

for review and redress should exist. Governments have primary, legal and 

political accountability for the protection of human rights

 

· Inclusive and equitable: Internet governance institutions and processes 

should be inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes, 

including decision making, should be bottom-up, enabling the full involvement 

of all stakeholders, in a way that does not disadvantage any category of 

stakeholder.

 

· Distributed: Internet Governance should be carried out through a distributed, 

decentralized and multistakeholder ecosystem.

 

· Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage 

collaborative and cooperative approaches that reflect the inputs and interests 

of stakeholders.

 

· Enabling meaningful participation: Anyone affected by an Internet 

governance process should be able to participate in that process. Particularly, 

Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity 

building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries 

and underrepresented groups.

 

 

 

From: Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 AM

To: Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>  ; Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>  

Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

 

I have a suggestion which I hope won't be considered too flippant. There's a game, at least in English, for whiling away long car journeys, in which the participants take turns to suggest adjectives, in alphabetical order, for "the parson's cat". 

Our "parson's cat" is "multistakeholderism"

My turn first - I suggest that an attribute of multistakeholderism is "inclusive", that we share a common understanding that multistakeholderism is (or should be) a way towards more inclusive participation in the IG debate and decision making.

Next person - either suggest another attribute that you think we perceive in common, or take what I proposed and qualify it as you think necessary - "but ....", or both.

This way we can build up a list of attributes in common while at the same time being made aware of the reservations and exceptions that people may have.

Could that work?

Deirdre

 

On 29 July 2014 11:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and only on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in this thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to as well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such outcome.

 

Are we there yet?

 

Mawaki 

 

 

 

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
“multistakeholderism” differently.

Greetings,
Norbert


On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for common understanding.
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
> > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
> > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
> > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
> > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
> > understanding".
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
> > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
> >>
> >> Just asking
> >>
> >> N
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
> >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
> >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
> >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
> >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
> >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
> >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
> >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
> >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
> >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
> >>>
> >>> Mawaki
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>> To 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





 

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 

  _____  

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140730/c0389ca7/attachment.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 kichango at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 11:52:31 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:52:31 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > McTim,
> >
> > You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
> > from, the ITU/WSIS breed.
>
> I've never made that point.  I HAVE however consistently pointed out
> that what goes on in Geneva is "meta-IG" and that BUTOC (Bottom Up,
> Transparent, Open, Consensus-based) processes are far superior to
> those where governments have a greater role than anyone else.
>

Well, I feel pretty sure having read you more than once qualifying the need
for distinction between stakeholder groups which are regularly raised when
faced with nominating representatives/delegates as a flaw (eg, CS vs.
business reps or CS vs. Technical community reps), and then faulting it
onto the Geneva-WSIS type of MSism... like they created it. This is quite a
different problem from the question of governments having greater role.

But if you think that is a misreading from my part, then I hope this would
also mean that you're hereby recognizing that the difficulties coming with
grouping and labeling stakeholders --which inevitably requires
distinguishing between them-- do not particularly originate from the
Geneva-WSIS type of MSism.

Thank you for the links to useful resources.
Best,

Mawaki
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140730/1d49f32e/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 17:56:03 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:56:03 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: "[...] to seize Iran's Internet licenses &
 domain name assets"
In-Reply-To: <53B1728B.30604@cafonso.ca>
References: <20140625100358.GA15266@nic.fr> <20140627141807.GA6388@nic.fr>
 <20140628154133.632989a1@quill> <CABbbmU5m73cc+_MeT1HKBy6tA8PUdm=rR82R4whxEVzC2WP0BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1X1bC1-0003vQ-Ib@igcaucus.org> <53B1728B.30604@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiBii5OGUSuG1z2-EVSVkCQt3=5ACDOvdV+2M9ZYDNjmw@mail.gmail.com>

Press Release and legal responses can be found here:

https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-07-30-en

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Far, far-fetched... again!
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 06/30/2014 09:56 AM, JFC Morfin wrote:
>> At 04:09 29/06/2014, Abdul Jaleel Shittu wrote:
>>> Who is wagging cyber war against who? The big Boss has unquestionable
>>> right to do anything as he likes. This development is not a good omen
>>> to the aspiration Internet Governance, this judgement is justifying
>>> the moves by some countries to have alternative www, where mutual
>>> respects prevail.
>>
>> Dear Abdul,
>>
>> The fundamental scientific issue for 125 years (since 21 Jan 1889
>> Norwegian award to Henri Poincaré for his non-demonstration of the
>> n-body problem) is the replacement of the Newtonian paradigm. We are
>> therefore engaged in a mental change of the magnitude of the Copernician
>> revolution. The problem is the problem of "locality". You probably heard
>> about the EPR experimentation and teleportation. Some information travel
>> faster than photons. Causes may seem to precede their effect. This
>> problem now becomes the core of the Internet issue as it entangles with
>> what is known as the technological singularity (not that machines will
>> replace human, but that humans cannot stay human without machines: last
>> time we known a singularity was with Socrates/Plato/Aristotle when they
>> switched human behaviour from feelings (sophism) to logic (syllogism) -
>> to day we are switching from dialectic logic to
>> monolectic/cybernetics+polylectics/agorics and we needed the digital
>> renormalization to scale, being limited by our brain relational capacity
>> [Dunbar number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number>]).
>>
>> You know that Claude Shanon has introduced entropy in information theory
>> through the communications concept. We have the same knind of thinking
>> to accomplish to introduce now negentropy through the intellition
>> concept. Communications are data transported at the speed of the light.
>> Intellition are data that are already here because they make sense.
>>
>> This architectonic (comprehending how things are) development
>> dramatically enlarges the spectrum of possibilities in architectural
>> (designing how some things should be) design. The internet architecture
>> is documented in IEN 48 (http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt). Over
>> the years working on it helped people to better take advantage from its
>> architectonics (it has even become a scientific discipline using the
>> internet as a test-bed). It has become quite intricated with intelligent
>> and stupid things.
>>
>> More and more, understanding the internet, net-neutrality, net-economy,
>> the internet governance, etc. is like understanding physics, relativity,
>> quantum-physic, energy, etc. because this is the ***same*** thing :
>> information/communication/intellition. The confusion is the same: you
>> have the technicians/scientifics, the politicians and the lawyers. The
>> lawyers are people who apply the law, that the politicians enforce, that
>> the technicians impose to all through popular machines, that science
>> tries to discover.
>>
>> Things would be easier and go faster the other way round, but this is
>> the way the world does the things: along the money's increasing flow
>> against the common sense's one.
>>
>> Lawyers are talking about a legal unique authoritative root. Politicials
>> are protecting an US unique authoritative root. Technicians have
>> developed a technology to support billions of unique authoritative
>> roots. Scientists know that unique authoritative roots are  neither
>> legalized, neither built, but observed and massaged by each user for
>> his/her own home use. The king is naked. But since he is the king he can
>> lie and say otherwise.
>>
>> The .ir issue is a legal joke which alarms and makes lawyers, possibly
>> politicians, sqawking. It only shows that lawyers did not even designed
>> their contractual network to protect the world from this kind of
>> technical absurdity due to a legal/political lack of consideration. We
>> did not trust the politicians, we know now why we can distrust the
>> lawyers. Why would I waste time and money with an unfinished system, at
>> guessing, worrying and developping contingency plans due to such nasty
>> attacks with unforeseable results and delays.
>>
>> Who can we then trust?
>>
>> Not the technicians anymore. They explained it last year (IEEE, ISOC,
>> IAB, IERF, W3C): they themselves trust the maket's economics, i.e. the
>> mechants (however they do not say how): this is the RFC 6852 about the
>> "modern normative paradigm". The acknowledgment of the "local/global"
>> problem at the RFC process level.
>>
>> This is why "moves by some countries to have alternative www, where
>> mutual respects prevail" is the way out. Not only at country, region,
>> language, city, village, trade, etc but at individual level. This is
>> what the WSIS has unanimously wished: a people centered digitality.
>> Don't worry. There is a unique authoritative sky, but it is not decided
>> by the (SOS) Scientific Observatory System. Believe me: you do not need
>> ICANN to know where the stars are ....
>>
>> jfc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ..................................................
>>> Abdul Jaleel Kehinde Shittu (PhD) (MIEEE)
>>> Senior Lecturer
>>> Public Enterprise Computing (PEC)
>>> School of Computing
>>> College of Arts and Sciences
>>> University Utara Malaysia
>>> 06010 Sintok
>>> Kedah
>>> Malaysia
>>>
>>> Office: +6049285095
>>> Fax: Â  Â  +6049285067
>>> Mobile: +60123052075
>>>
>>> abdulJaleel.K.Shittu at ieee.org <mailto:abdulJaleel.K.Shittu at ieee.org>Â
>>> omomeji at ais.org <mailto:omomeji at ais.org>
>>> shittua at acm.org <mailto:shittua at acm.org>
>>>
>>> http://www.flipsnack.com/FAC55B5C5A8/fukiofi3
>>>
>>> https://www.hetl.org/academic-articles/ict-impact-assessment-model-an-extension-of-the-cipp-and-kirkpatrick-models/
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>> Â http://about.me/abduljaleelshittu.
>>> "It is one attitude, not one aptitude, that determines one altitude
>>> in life".
>>> Â
>>> "In the presence of greatness, pettiness disappears. In the absence of
>>> a great dream, pettiness prevails."
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Am Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:18:07 +0200
>>>     schrieb Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org
>>>     <mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org>>:
>>>     > There have been, apparently, a judgment (transferring the .ir, no
>>>     > less...), in the USA:
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/
>>>
>>>     Is the judgment itself available online?
>>>     I find the article not overly illuminating, it IMO seems to be
>>>     based to
>>>     a too large extent on speculations of people who evidently don't know
>>>     what they're talking about in relation to the Internet. Not that the
>>>     judgment itself is necessarily better in that regard, but court
>>>     judgments are a serious matter regardless of the correctness of the
>>>     underlying assumptions.
>>>     Greetings,
>>>     Norbert
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Jul 30 19:43:23 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:43:23 +1000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <17b301cfac03$9adba900$d092fb00$@gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>   <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <9A74AA99CEED4BE49B8A92AD384425E9@Toshiba> <CAMz5XN4haDgT-StnsovvWihFSsBBSMweFtVLTKRCoLjW0xv+mg@mail.gmail.com> <8AEA59A91FD94808AED718375305CD9A@Toshiba> <CAEhPqwqT4MGfYeRUkPF15tJWN1jp_AgCgR6c0gfEVdsx1uT5hA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_W=MKjQUkRgJfhVYHtQWNKm5SqDdyBzVS5DZxM_839bg@mail.gmail.com> <CADFgh1122JNgLc=PaE6Fry7fDGz4POh-AXnZPP75jW8bBrL3nA@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v_epk38Q6cYeyMd-Y7Hw0HoC_r=mfOHi8gC9B9P2-DX-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7Jz0y_STqYNN3_rH0c9CZ_pyFKuUFH+oRbMp0nCqA==w@mail.gmail.com> <20140729164701.2e2d1997@quill> <CACTo+v9vCEzdT+jJNc1kVdaR4Rx+bodZe9s4rNPeu4fzG1ZAug@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN74SjtqQ7ANHpn7WtPMjmOzpT6t4SArcd-yU3qBCbMfKw@mail.gmail.com> <37472E8C242B4E469B70062858724789@Toshiba> <17b301cfac03$9adba900$d092fb00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99D287BB5ABB4B81BE77F0F8156CBC8C@Toshiba>

good points Michael. I am not sure where this is going but I agree.

Ian

From: michael gurstein 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:36 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Ian Peter' ; 'Deirdre Williams' ; 'Mawaki Chango' 
Subject: RE: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

Two comments on this below…

 

The first is that the ``Multistakeholder`` description includes ``users`` but not ``non-users`` i.e. everyone else… 

 

Since for better or for worse everyone in the world is now impacted in one way or another by the Internet whether they are ``users`` or not, some means for eliciting/facilitating/enabling participation in these processes by (current) non-users must be included in these formulations. That such was not provided for in the original NetMundial statement is I think a significant and negative reflection on the ultimate composition of the NetMundial meeting itself and particularly of those who drafted the statement.

 

The second is that I would have thought that you should have included in your statement the commitment from the NetMundial document that the Internet is to be ``managed in the public interest``… It seems to me that this statement provides a basic metric against which to measure all subsequent formulations and outputs including those of the IGF even in the absence of any clear agreement on what might be specifically meant by this phrase.

 

M

 

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:14 PM
To: Deirdre Williams; Internet Governance; Mawaki Chango
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

 

Here’s what was agreed to at Netmundial. I personally have no problem with any of this, does anyone?

 

What I think we need to add to this comes from the discussion Parminder started, in response to Avri’s posting, as regards limits to multistakeholder application to final decision making in some instances. But if we are all happy with what is below, we have a very good start. We could then look at the areas where we see limits to applicability and the need for further clarification.

 

Ian Peter

 

 

FROM NETMUNDIAL

 

INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES

· Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, 

multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable 

participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, 

civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users.

The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be 

interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.

 

· Open, participative, consensus driven governance: The development of 

international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance 

arrangements should enable the full and balanced participation of all 

stakeholders from around the globe, and made by consensus, to the extent 

possible.

 

· Transparent: Decisions made must be easy to understand, processes must 

be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures, and procedures must 

be developed and agreed upon through multistakeholder processes.

 

· Accountable: Mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as 

for review and redress should exist. Governments have primary, legal and 

political accountability for the protection of human rights

 

· Inclusive and equitable: Internet governance institutions and processes 

should be inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes, 

including decision making, should be bottom-up, enabling the full involvement 

of all stakeholders, in a way that does not disadvantage any category of 

stakeholder.

 

· Distributed: Internet Governance should be carried out through a distributed, 

decentralized and multistakeholder ecosystem.

 

· Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage 

collaborative and cooperative approaches that reflect the inputs and interests 

of stakeholders.

 

· Enabling meaningful participation: Anyone affected by an Internet 

governance process should be able to participate in that process. Particularly, 

Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity 

building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries 

and underrepresented groups.

 

 

 

From: Deirdre Williams 

Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:36 AM

To: Internet Governance ; Mawaki Chango 

Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

 

I have a suggestion which I hope won't be considered too flippant. There's a game, at least in English, for whiling away long car journeys, in which the participants take turns to suggest adjectives, in alphabetical order, for "the parson's cat". 

Our "parson's cat" is "multistakeholderism"

My turn first - I suggest that an attribute of multistakeholderism is "inclusive", that we share a common understanding that multistakeholderism is (or should be) a way towards more inclusive participation in the IG debate and decision making.

Next person - either suggest another attribute that you think we perceive in common, or take what I proposed and qualify it as you think necessary - "but ....", or both.

This way we can build up a list of attributes in common while at the same time being made aware of the reservations and exceptions that people may have.

Could that work?

Deirdre

 

On 29 July 2014 11:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

I personally endorsed the use of that phrase earlier on the basis, and only on the basis, that this is work in progress, that we are right in this thread and in a couple of others related seeking to hammer out a common understanding. So I have been listening and hope I am being listened to as well. There will be a point where we might reach and declare some common understanding or we will have to acknowledge our failure to reach such outcome.

 

Are we there yet?

 

Mawaki 

 

 

 

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

Is there really a common understanding of multistakeholderism? I don't
think so, and I would further suggest that it will be a good starting
point to acknowledge that currently there are several different
understandings of multistakeholderism, and to therefore start listening
to each other with a goal of learning how others may understand
“multistakeholderism” differently.

Greetings,
Norbert


On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:29 -0400
Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for common understanding.
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 29 July 2014 10:16, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am ok with "common understanding" (putting the emphasis in my last
> > sentence below on the term "understand" rather than on
> > "definition'.) Note: at times some may also refer to it as working
> > definition, whatever designation people are comfortable with works
> > fine for me, but I like the modest and cooperative tone in "common
> > understanding".
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma
> > <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Should we seek "a common understanding" instead of  "definition"?
> >>
> >> Just asking
> >>
> >> N
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Mawaki Chango
> >> <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>  On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva <
> >>> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ian, probably multistakeholder is not  defined yet because it is
> >>>> composed of two words multiple-stakeholders. And stakeholder too
> >>>> is composed of two words stake-holder. Technically then,
> >>>> Multistakeholder is composed of three words
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It's a totally different question as to whether
> >>> "mutistakeholderism" needs to be defined despite being made up of
> >>> parts that are familiar. And I think all definition questions
> >>> boil down to people struggling to understand precisely what
> >>> "mutistakeholderism" is or should be.
> >>>
> >>> Mawaki
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>> To 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





 

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/5a1fbdc9/attachment.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 kichango at gmail.com  Wed Jul 30 20:24:56 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:24:56 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>

Correction:

 ...qualifying the need for distinction between stakeholder groups *[erase
--> which are regularly raised] when faced with nominating
representatives/delegates as a flaw (...) and then *faulting the
Geneva-WSIS type of MSism for it...


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > McTim,
>> >
>> > You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and
>> only
>> > from, the ITU/WSIS breed.
>>
>> I've never made that point.  I HAVE however consistently pointed out
>> that what goes on in Geneva is "meta-IG" and that BUTOC (Bottom Up,
>> Transparent, Open, Consensus-based) processes are far superior to
>> those where governments have a greater role than anyone else.
>>
>
> Well, I feel pretty sure having read you more than once qualifying the
> need for distinction between stakeholder groups which are regularly raised
> when faced with nominating representatives/delegates as a flaw (eg, CS vs.
> business reps or CS vs. Technical community reps), and then faulting it
> onto the Geneva-WSIS type of MSism... like they created it. This is quite a
> different problem from the question of governments having greater role.
>
> But if you think that is a misreading from my part, then I hope this would
> also mean that you're hereby recognizing that the difficulties coming with
> grouping and labeling stakeholders --which inevitably requires
> distinguishing between them-- do not particularly originate from the
> Geneva-WSIS type of MSism.
>
> Thank you for the links to useful resources.
> Best,
>
> Mawaki
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/4af48ae9/attachment.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jul 31 02:23:56 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:53:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] Root Server
In-Reply-To: <C9424BE9-EAF2-47F8-806A-9390DE75FD67@virtualized.org>
References: <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <53D084A0.8070805@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016424EF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxi5SpxffC6LqpvMwmaJk+-+ZVLMXO7RdDwNCAeTuymy1w@mail.gmail.com> <EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org> <53D203FF.5030906@itforchange.net> <100B3D2C-D70F-4FF4-988F-78DBFBA849BE@virtualized.org> <53D3D516.6030201@itforchange.net> <63E8FB10-2991-4013-9C6F-8BA747610828@virtualized.org> <53D4B9F1.7060705@itforchange.net> <E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org> <53D633E9.5090507@itforchange.net> <C9424BE9-EAF2-47F8-806A-9390DE75FD67@virtualized.org>
Message-ID: <53D9E0FC.2070000@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 29 July 2014 03:48 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 4:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> It misleadingly declares IANA 'function' to be  a merely clerical one.
>
> While I'm sure you will not believe me, having (long ago and I doubt 
> things have changed) been the general manager of IANA, this 
> declaration is _not_ misleading.  The IANA functions are, in most 
> cases, editing a text file according to externally defined policies 
> and publishing the result. I know that is boring and doesn't play to 
> particular political agendas, but it is reality.

David,

We here need to focus what is the subject of global controversy, and to 
deny that there has been any controversy at all, would be, well, 
inappropriate, or mis leading. So, you got it backward. You choose the 
technical implementation aspects of IANA - which ICANN does - and 
declare it as non political controversial. Of course, it is. But simply 
is not the point.

Since there patently has indeed been a historic controversy - and US is 
right now reacting to it through offering an IANA transition- I simply 
cannot understand why you are denying it, which simply would mean that 
those who ever saw it as a controversy are kind of stupid.

There is an 'Authority' side of Internet Assigned Names Authority  - 
which vests with the govt of the US, whereby it both contracts the IANA 
technical/ implementation function, and oversees it, especially 
confirming or not any root zone changes...

Do you deny this fact?

If you do not, let me tell you it is this IANA authority exercised by 
the US gov which is the subject of controversy and should therefore be 
focussed on in the IANA transition discussions. No one is bothered about 
the technical/ implementation function undertaken by ICANN, for the 
simple reason that, as you rightly observe, it is politically non 
controversial.

It is the holder of IANA authority, and its role, which is the subject 
of IANA transition. Not whom the IANA authority will give the IANA 
contract, which is a subsequent issue. IANA transition is about 
transitioning the authority to award the IANA contract, and to oversee 
IANA functions,  esp root zone changes. This authority today is with the 
US gov.... We need to see where it should go from here. ICANN taking 
over this authority is one view, which is very fine as one view.

But what astonishes me a lot is, and I consider as misleading, that the 
whole focus has been shifted from this 'authority' with the US, to 
simple acts of technical implementation of the functions which ICANN as 
US contractor does, which is not at all controversial.

What astonishes me even more is that civil society does not get up and 
call the bluff.

parminder


>
> Regards,
> -drc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/b0cdb64a/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 08:03:27 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 07:03:27 -0500
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgG3YxHYgBVE-=NJp3SYPQWqTaUbJjp=UvYTu_ehUVQbg@mail.gmail.com>

Mawaki,

There are multiple flaws in Geneva based IG processes.  I will
enumerate just a few.

1. They are not actually IG, they are what I call meta-IG or shadow IG.

2. The SGs are artificial and unnecessary except to silo people and
perpetuate the power of governments.

3. The silos are self-perpetuating and carry over into things like
IGFs and Net Mundial.  The notion of representation inherent in those
silos takes us further away from the original notion of individuals
speaking for themselves in shaping Internet policy.

ICANN on the other hand is divided by Supporting Organizations, by
functional area if you will.  These are then sometimes divided by
Various constituencies and SGs, sometimes not.

the cases where they are not are the most BUTOCy I find, and prefer
them to the others.  YMMV.


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> Correction:
>
>  ...qualifying the need for distinction between stakeholder groups *[erase
> --> which are regularly raised] when faced with nominating
> representatives/delegates as a flaw (...) and then *faulting the Geneva-WSIS
> type of MSism for it...
>



-- 
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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 09:14:53 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:14:53 -0400
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B4nOA@mail.gmail.com>

Yesterday the Caribbean Telecommunications Union added Principles for a
Seamless ICT Space - A preliminary discussion paper V 2.0
<http://www.ctu.int/download/Principles%20for%20a%20Singles%20%20ICT%20Space%202.0.pdf>
to
the list of documents <http://www.ctu.int/component/content/article/163> for
the Caribbean IGF to be held next week in Nassau. The CTU was set up by
CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, and clearly defines itself as an
intergovernmental organisation. On page 9 of the document you will find
this list:

"6. The Role of Stakeholders

The following outlines the roles of each of the major stakeholders in
making the Single

ICT Space a reality:

 Governments

 Regulators

 Operators

 CARICOM Institutions

 Other Caribbean Organisations" (I have edited it to leave only the
bullets)

My initial response was - "I" am not there - but I will be there, at the
meeting, at the CTU's invitation, as a full participant. So what's going on?

I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is caused
by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as being one with
a tangible, concrete investment in a process. Google and Facebook etc
qualify, "we" don't. But the issue isn't that type of investment. The issue
is approach or perspective. POV (point of view) would be better than
stakeholder. The CTU's list accords perfectly with its perspective as an
intergovernmental organisation. Currently the list I quote above is what is
ethically possible for that organisation. But at the same time they are
opening themselves to consider POVs of other people and groups.

What we need to do is start thinking about different approaches, and open
negotiations among the points of view to meld them into a whole.
"Stakeholder" sounds like a sort of ownership and distorts the argument.
Please try to think about it this way and see if it makes sense to you.

Deirdre




On 30 July 2014 20:24, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Correction:
>
>  ...qualifying the need for distinction between stakeholder groups *[erase
> --> which are regularly raised] when faced with nominating
> representatives/delegates as a flaw (...) and then *faulting the
> Geneva-WSIS type of MSism for it...
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > McTim,
>>> >
>>> > You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and
>>> only
>>> > from, the ITU/WSIS breed.
>>>
>>> I've never made that point.  I HAVE however consistently pointed out
>>> that what goes on in Geneva is "meta-IG" and that BUTOC (Bottom Up,
>>> Transparent, Open, Consensus-based) processes are far superior to
>>> those where governments have a greater role than anyone else.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I feel pretty sure having read you more than once qualifying the
>> need for distinction between stakeholder groups which are regularly raised
>> when faced with nominating representatives/delegates as a flaw (eg, CS vs.
>> business reps or CS vs. Technical community reps), and then faulting it
>> onto the Geneva-WSIS type of MSism... like they created it. This is quite a
>> different problem from the question of governments having greater role.
>>
>> But if you think that is a misreading from my part, then I hope this
>> would also mean that you're hereby recognizing that the difficulties coming
>> with grouping and labeling stakeholders --which inevitably requires
>> distinguishing between them-- do not particularly originate from the
>> Geneva-WSIS type of MSism.
>>
>> Thank you for the links to useful resources.
>> Best,
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/46b4dba9/attachment.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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 10:00:12 2014
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:00:12 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: "[...] to seize Iran's Internet licenses &
 domain name assets"
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiBii5OGUSuG1z2-EVSVkCQt3=5ACDOvdV+2M9ZYDNjmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140625100358.GA15266@nic.fr> <20140627141807.GA6388@nic.fr>
 <20140628154133.632989a1@quill> <CABbbmU5m73cc+_MeT1HKBy6tA8PUdm=rR82R4whxEVzC2WP0BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1X1bC1-0003vQ-Ib@igcaucus.org> <53B1728B.30604@cafonso.ca> <CACAaNxiBii5OGUSuG1z2-EVSVkCQt3=5ACDOvdV+2M9ZYDNjmw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uEH+Sc2oBzEh=s3ra0WazZqv0Wh5w06mKat=-EBFD6=3A@mail.gmail.com>

A preliminary legal analysis of the ICANN response can be found here:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140730_icanns_ir_response_opens_legal_can_of_worms/


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Press Release and legal responses can be found here:
>
> https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-07-30-en
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> > Far, far-fetched... again!
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > On 06/30/2014 09:56 AM, JFC Morfin wrote:
> >> At 04:09 29/06/2014, Abdul Jaleel Shittu wrote:
> >>> Who is wagging cyber war against who? The big Boss has unquestionable
> >>> right to do anything as he likes. This development is not a good omen
> >>> to the aspiration Internet Governance, this judgement is justifying
> >>> the moves by some countries to have alternative www, where mutual
> >>> respects prevail.
> >>
> >> Dear Abdul,
> >>
> >> The fundamental scientific issue for 125 years (since 21 Jan 1889
> >> Norwegian award to Henri Poincaré for his non-demonstration of the
> >> n-body problem) is the replacement of the Newtonian paradigm. We are
> >> therefore engaged in a mental change of the magnitude of the Copernician
> >> revolution. The problem is the problem of "locality". You probably heard
> >> about the EPR experimentation and teleportation. Some information travel
> >> faster than photons. Causes may seem to precede their effect. This
> >> problem now becomes the core of the Internet issue as it entangles with
> >> what is known as the technological singularity (not that machines will
> >> replace human, but that humans cannot stay human without machines: last
> >> time we known a singularity was with Socrates/Plato/Aristotle when they
> >> switched human behaviour from feelings (sophism) to logic (syllogism) -
> >> to day we are switching from dialectic logic to
> >> monolectic/cybernetics+polylectics/agorics and we needed the digital
> >> renormalization to scale, being limited by our brain relational capacity
> >> [Dunbar number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number>]).
> >>
> >> You know that Claude Shanon has introduced entropy in information theory
> >> through the communications concept. We have the same knind of thinking
> >> to accomplish to introduce now negentropy through the intellition
> >> concept. Communications are data transported at the speed of the light.
> >> Intellition are data that are already here because they make sense.
> >>
> >> This architectonic (comprehending how things are) development
> >> dramatically enlarges the spectrum of possibilities in architectural
> >> (designing how some things should be) design. The internet architecture
> >> is documented in IEN 48 (http://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt). Over
> >> the years working on it helped people to better take advantage from its
> >> architectonics (it has even become a scientific discipline using the
> >> internet as a test-bed). It has become quite intricated with intelligent
> >> and stupid things.
> >>
> >> More and more, understanding the internet, net-neutrality, net-economy,
> >> the internet governance, etc. is like understanding physics, relativity,
> >> quantum-physic, energy, etc. because this is the ***same*** thing :
> >> information/communication/intellition. The confusion is the same: you
> >> have the technicians/scientifics, the politicians and the lawyers. The
> >> lawyers are people who apply the law, that the politicians enforce, that
> >> the technicians impose to all through popular machines, that science
> >> tries to discover.
> >>
> >> Things would be easier and go faster the other way round, but this is
> >> the way the world does the things: along the money's increasing flow
> >> against the common sense's one.
> >>
> >> Lawyers are talking about a legal unique authoritative root. Politicials
> >> are protecting an US unique authoritative root. Technicians have
> >> developed a technology to support billions of unique authoritative
> >> roots. Scientists know that unique authoritative roots are  neither
> >> legalized, neither built, but observed and massaged by each user for
> >> his/her own home use. The king is naked. But since he is the king he can
> >> lie and say otherwise.
> >>
> >> The .ir issue is a legal joke which alarms and makes lawyers, possibly
> >> politicians, sqawking. It only shows that lawyers did not even designed
> >> their contractual network to protect the world from this kind of
> >> technical absurdity due to a legal/political lack of consideration. We
> >> did not trust the politicians, we know now why we can distrust the
> >> lawyers. Why would I waste time and money with an unfinished system, at
> >> guessing, worrying and developping contingency plans due to such nasty
> >> attacks with unforeseable results and delays.
> >>
> >> Who can we then trust?
> >>
> >> Not the technicians anymore. They explained it last year (IEEE, ISOC,
> >> IAB, IERF, W3C): they themselves trust the maket's economics, i.e. the
> >> mechants (however they do not say how): this is the RFC 6852 about the
> >> "modern normative paradigm". The acknowledgment of the "local/global"
> >> problem at the RFC process level.
> >>
> >> This is why "moves by some countries to have alternative www, where
> >> mutual respects prevail" is the way out. Not only at country, region,
> >> language, city, village, trade, etc but at individual level. This is
> >> what the WSIS has unanimously wished: a people centered digitality.
> >> Don't worry. There is a unique authoritative sky, but it is not decided
> >> by the (SOS) Scientific Observatory System. Believe me: you do not need
> >> ICANN to know where the stars are ....
> >>
> >> jfc
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> ..................................................
> >>> Abdul Jaleel Kehinde Shittu (PhD) (MIEEE)
> >>> Senior Lecturer
> >>> Public Enterprise Computing (PEC)
> >>> School of Computing
> >>> College of Arts and Sciences
> >>> University Utara Malaysia
> >>> 06010 Sintok
> >>> Kedah
> >>> Malaysia
> >>>
> >>> Office: +6049285095
> >>> Fax: Â  Â  +6049285067
> >>> Mobile: +60123052075
> >>>
> >>> abdulJaleel.K.Shittu at ieee.org <mailto:abdulJaleel.K.Shittu at ieee.org>Â
> >>> omomeji at ais.org <mailto:omomeji at ais.org>
> >>> shittua at acm.org <mailto:shittua at acm.org>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.flipsnack.com/FAC55B5C5A8/fukiofi3
> >>>
> >>>
> https://www.hetl.org/academic-articles/ict-impact-assessment-model-an-extension-of-the-cipp-and-kirkpatrick-models/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>> Â http://about.me/abduljaleelshittu.
> >>> "It is one attitude, not one aptitude, that determines one altitude
> >>> in life".
> >>> Â
> >>> "In the presence of greatness, pettiness disappears. In the absence of
> >>> a great dream, pettiness prevails."
> >>> Â
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch
> >>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>     Am Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:18:07 +0200
> >>>     schrieb Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org
> >>>     <mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org>>:
> >>>     > There have been, apparently, a judgment (transferring the .ir, no
> >>>     > less...), in the USA:
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>
> http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-us-terror-victims-now-own-irans-internet/
> >>>
> >>>     Is the judgment itself available online?
> >>>     I find the article not overly illuminating, it IMO seems to be
> >>>     based to
> >>>     a too large extent on speculations of people who evidently don't
> know
> >>>     what they're talking about in relation to the Internet. Not that
> the
> >>>     judgment itself is necessarily better in that regard, but court
> >>>     judgments are a serious matter regardless of the correctness of the
> >>>     underlying assumptions.
> >>>     Greetings,
> >>>     Norbert
> >>>
> >>>     ____________________________________________________________
> >>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>     Â  Â  Â governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> >>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>     Â  Â  Â http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>     Â  Â  Â http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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
diegocanabarro [at] *gmail.com <http://gmail.com>*
Cell # +55-11-99441470 (São Paulo) / +55-51-8108-1098 (Porto Alegre)
Skype: diegocanabarro
Social networking: diegorrcc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/bd5f1291/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 10:22:17 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:22:17 -0500
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B4nOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B4nOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjFDHq+C_n+ign-OK=dNHnd=P=VhnPNiYKEgx3D7A7wcg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Deirdre Williams
<williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is caused
> by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as being one with a
> tangible, concrete investment in a process.

I don't think that is the case at all.  I've never seen or heard
anyone in IG make that kind of statement.


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 gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 11:34:16 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 08:34:16 -0700
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjFDHq+C_n+ign-OK=dNHnd=P=VhnPNiYKEgx3D7A7wcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B4nOA@mail.gmail.com> <C ACAaNxjFDHq+C_n+ign-OK=dNHnd=P=VhnPNiYKEgx3D7A7wcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1de201cfacd4$e3a1f500$aae5df00$@gmail.com>

Hmmm... do cats announce their intentions to pigeons?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:22 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams
Cc: Mawaki Chango
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is 
> caused by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as 
> being one with a tangible, concrete investment in a process.

I don't think that is the case at all.  I've never seen or heard anyone in IG make that kind of statement.


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 suresh at hserus.net  Thu Jul 31 11:49:34 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:19:34 +0530
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <1de201cfacd4$e3a1f500$aae5df00$@gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net> <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill> <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B!
 4nOA@mail
 .gmail.com> <C ACAaNxjFDHq+C_n+ign-OK=dNHnd=P=VhnPNiYKEgx3D7A7wcg@mail.gmail.com> <1de201cfacd4$e3a1f500$aae5df00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8AB88D76-53FF-4AE5-83D8-A0B3E18E11BB@hserus.net>

Tangible, concrete investment can mean just active involvement in a process, and contribution of personal expertise, time and effort to it.

--srs (iPad)

> On 31-Jul-2014, at 21:04, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hmmm... do cats announce their intentions to pigeons?
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:22 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams
> Cc: Mawaki Chango
> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is 
>> caused by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as 
>> being one with a tangible, concrete investment in a process.
> 
> I don't think that is the case at all.  I've never seen or heard anyone in IG make that kind of statement.
> 
> 
> rgds,
> 
> McTim
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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  Thu Jul 31 12:01:01 2014
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:01:01 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <8AB88D76-53FF-4AE5-83D8-A0B3E18E11BB@hserus.net>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
  <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net>
  <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
  <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com>
  <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
  <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
  <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
  <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
  <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
  <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
  <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
  <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
  <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
  <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
  <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
  <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
  <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
  <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
  <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B4nOA@mail.gmail.com>
  <C ACAaNxjFDHq+C_n+ign-OK=dNHnd=P=VhnPNiYKEgx3D7A7wcg@mail.gmail.com>
  <1de201cfacd4$e3a1f500$aae5df00$@gmail.com>
  <8AB88D76-53FF-4AE5-83D8-A0B3E18E11BB@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <139056911-1406822463-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-912788221-@b5.c3.bise6.blackberry>

I agree with you. But it is frequently perceived as being money or property of some kind, and it would be good to avoid confusion as much as possible. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:19:34 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; michael gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>
Cc: McTim<dogwallah at gmail.com>; Deirdre Williams<williams.deirdre at gmail.com>; Mawaki Chango<kichango at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

Tangible, concrete investment can mean just active involvement in a process, and contribution of personal expertise, time and effort to it.

--srs (iPad)

> On 31-Jul-2014, at 21:04, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hmmm... do cats announce their intentions to pigeons?
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:22 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams
> Cc: Mawaki Chango
> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is 
>> caused by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as 
>> being one with a tangible, concrete investment in a process.
> 
> I don't think that is the case at all.  I've never seen or heard anyone in IG make that kind of statement.
> 
> 
> rgds,
> 
> McTim
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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 suresh at hserus.net  Thu Jul 31 12:20:18 2014
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:50:18 +0530
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <139056911-1406822463-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-912788221-@b5.c3.bise6.blackberry>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net> <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill> <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B!
 4nOA@mail
 .gmail.com> <C ACAaNxjFDHq+C_n+ign-OK=dNHnd=P=VhnPNiYKEgx3D7A7wcg@mail.gmail.com> <1de201cfacd4$e3a1f500$aae5df00$@gmail.com> <8AB88D76-53FF-4AE5-83D8-A0B3E18E11BB@hserus.net> <139056911-1406822463-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-912788221-@b5.c3.bise6.blackberry>
Message-ID: <E993018B-B7F4-43B2-A731-02E39038B68A@hserus.net>

Fair enough

--srs (iPad)

> On 31-Jul-2014, at 21:31, williams.deirdre at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I agree with you. But it is frequently perceived as being money or property of some kind, and it would be good to avoid confusion as much as possible. 
> Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:19:34 
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; michael gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>
> Cc: McTim<dogwallah at gmail.com>; Deirdre Williams<williams.deirdre at gmail.com>; Mawaki Chango<kichango at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
> Tangible, concrete investment can mean just active involvement in a process, and contribution of personal expertise, time and effort to it.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
>> On 31-Jul-2014, at 21:04, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hmmm... do cats announce their intentions to pigeons?
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
>> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:22 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams
>> Cc: Mawaki Chango
>> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is 
>>> caused by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as 
>>> being one with a tangible, concrete investment in a process.
>> 
>> I don't think that is the case at all.  I've never seen or heard anyone in IG make that kind of statement.
>> 
>> 
>> rgds,
>> 
>> McTim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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 peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu  Thu Jul 31 12:31:33 2014
From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:31:33 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <E993018B-B7F4-43B2-A731-02E39038B68A@hserus.net>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com> <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net> <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net> <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net> <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill> <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B!
 4nOA@mail
 .gmail.com> <C ACAaNxjFDHq+C_n+ign-OK=dNHnd=P=VhnPNiYKEgx3D7A7wcg@mail.gmail.com> <1de201cfacd4$e3a1f500$aae5df00$@gmail.com> <8AB88D76-53FF-4AE5-83D8-A0B3E18E11BB@hserus.net> <139056911-1406822463-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-912788221-@b5.c3.bise6.blackberry> <E993018B-B7F4-43B2-A731-02E39038B68A@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <0CE5A38A-76E1-40C8-8F0F-21AEE6A5C26C@hellmonds.eu>

It may be useful to refer to some of the definitions proposed by ISO, the International Standards Organization, such as this one:

2.27
stakeholder
any individual, group or organization that can affect, be affected by, or perceive themselves to be affected by a decision or activity
[SOURCE: ISO Guide 73:2009, 3.2.1.1, modified — The NOTE has been deleted.]

This particular guide is quoted in:
ISO/IEC TR 38502:2014(en)
Information technology — Governance of IT 


On 31 Jul 2014, at 18:20, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

Fair enough

--srs (iPad)

> On 31-Jul-2014, at 21:31, williams.deirdre at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I agree with you. But it is frequently perceived as being money or property of some kind, and it would be good to avoid confusion as much as possible. 
> Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:19:34 
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; michael gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>
> Cc: McTim<dogwallah at gmail.com>; Deirdre Williams<williams.deirdre at gmail.com>; Mawaki Chango<kichango at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
> 
> Tangible, concrete investment can mean just active involvement in a process, and contribution of personal expertise, time and effort to it.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
>> On 31-Jul-2014, at 21:04, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hmmm... do cats announce their intentions to pigeons?
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
>> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:22 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams
>> Cc: Mawaki Chango
>> Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is 
>>> caused by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as 
>>> being one with a tangible, concrete investment in a process.
>> 
>> I don't think that is the case at all.  I've never seen or heard anyone in IG make that kind of statement.
>> 
>> 
>> rgds,
>> 
>> McTim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/0f6f7779/attachment.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 12:40:58 2014
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:40:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: [Members] US District Court for DC
 - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN
In-Reply-To: <53B93A3B.6090707@ITforChange.net>
References: <53B928BE.3040603@itforchange.net> <53B93A3B.6090707@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxh5yiQ7H64OrSPYYPdzX+RYzH8CdH2ka1oGEv13=K_K5g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  I thought this posting on another list may be useful to the discussion on
> the IGC thread  "Some more legal tangles for ICANN"
> regards,
> Guru
>
> -------- Original Message --------  Subject: [Members] US District Court
> for DC - IRAN/SYRIA - ICANN  Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:14:12 +0200  From: Jean-Christophe
> NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
> <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>
>

<snip>



>
>
>
>
>
> * Nobody really owns a domain name, and there are many indications that it
> could considered in the same way for TLDs. A TLD or domain name
> 'holder'/'tenant' pays a 'lease' for a domain. If the .COM is the property
> of ICANN or DoC, then .IR would then be the property of its current tenant.
> As with any lease, it can end if not renewed or be terminated by the
> delegating authority (if nobody is ultimate owner). So we definitely have a
> situation that isnot clear, as a domain name is still not a property but
> holds intellectual property rights, turning it into a very valuable asset.
> You do not own the domain, you own the right to use it. This still means
> that any TLD has a commercial value, including ccTLDs, and is therefore an
> asset and subject to a Court sequestration warrant or redelegation request.
> And in this case, the judge is not asking for the moon, I would say.*
>


I like ICANNN's formulation in their reply to the Writ:

"ccTLD can be thought of as a zip code. That zip code may encompass many
different addresses, and those addresses in turn may correspond to certain
places on the Internet that people can access, such as websites. But the
street address itself is not property, nor is the zip code in which the
street address exists…To the extent a ccTLD is capable of a legal
definition, it is a collection of technical and administrative services,
rather than property"


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/7c69082c/attachment.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  Thu Jul 31 13:14:23 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:14:23 -0700
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B4nOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B4nOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ef501cface2$e1132b70$a3398250$@gmail.com>

Thanks for pointing to this report Deidre, I think overall it is a very valuable document and a bit of a model for how to move forward in jurisdictionally divided contexts.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:15 AM
To: Internet Governance; Mawaki Chango
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

 

Yesterday the Caribbean Telecommunications Union added  <http://www.ctu.int/download/Principles%20for%20a%20Singles%20%20ICT%20Space%202.0.pdf> Principles for a Seamless ICT Space - A preliminary discussion paper V 2.0 to the <http://www.ctu.int/component/content/article/163>  list of documents for the Caribbean IGF to be held next week in Nassau. The CTU was set up by CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, and clearly defines itself as an intergovernmental organisation. On page 9 of the document you will find this list:

"6. The Role of Stakeholders

The following outlines the roles of each of the major stakeholders in making the Single 

ICT Space a reality:

· Governments

· Regulators

· Operators

· CARICOM Institutions

· Other Caribbean Organisations" (I have edited it to leave only the bullets)

My initial response was - "I" am not there - but I will be there, at the meeting, at the CTU's invitation, as a full participant. So what's going on?

I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is caused by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as being one with a tangible, concrete investment in a process. Google and Facebook etc qualify, "we" don't. But the issue isn't that type of investment. The issue is approach or perspective. POV (point of view) would be better than stakeholder. The CTU's list accords perfectly with its perspective as an intergovernmental organisation. Currently the list I quote above is what is ethically possible for that organisation. But at the same time they are opening themselves to consider POVs of other people and groups.

What we need to do is start thinking about different approaches, and open negotiations among the points of view to meld them into a whole. "Stakeholder" sounds like a sort of ownership and distorts the argument. Please try to think about it this way and see if it makes sense to you.

Deirdre

 

 

On 30 July 2014 20:24, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

Correction:

 

 ...qualifying the need for distinction between stakeholder groups *[erase --> which are regularly raised] when faced with nominating representatives/delegates as a flaw (...) and then *faulting the Geneva-WSIS type of MSism for it... 

 

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> McTim,
>
> You keep making this point that all the woes of MSism come from, and only
> from, the ITU/WSIS breed.

I've never made that point.  I HAVE however consistently pointed out
that what goes on in Geneva is "meta-IG" and that BUTOC (Bottom Up,
Transparent, Open, Consensus-based) processes are far superior to
those where governments have a greater role than anyone else.

 

Well, I feel pretty sure having read you more than once qualifying the need for distinction between stakeholder groups which are regularly raised when faced with nominating representatives/delegates as a flaw (eg, CS vs. business reps or CS vs. Technical community reps), and then faulting it onto the Geneva-WSIS type of MSism... like they created it. This is quite a different problem from the question of governments having greater role.

 

But if you think that is a misreading from my part, then I hope this would also mean that you're hereby recognizing that the difficulties coming with grouping and labeling stakeholders --which inevitably requires distinguishing between them-- do not particularly originate from the Geneva-WSIS type of MSism.

 

Thank you for the links to useful resources.

Best,

 

Mawaki

 

 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/bd6dd262/attachment.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  Thu Jul 31 13:14:23 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:14:23 -0700
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <0CE5A38A-76E1-40C8-8F0F-21AEE6A5C26C@hellmonds.eu>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7ivN1utnLp5gePuHFnjKyYmNmPovSQxoX6qxsQ8B4nOA@mail.gmail.com> <C
	 ACAaNxjFDHq+C_n+ign-OK=dNHnd=P=VhnPNiYKEgx3D7A7wcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1de201cfacd4$e3a1f500$aae5df00$@gmail.com> <8AB88D76-53FF-4AE5-83D8-A0B3E18E11BB@hserus.net>
 <139056911-1406822463-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-912788221-@b5.c3.bise6.blackberry>
 <E993018B-B7F4-43B2-A731-02E39038B68A@hserus.net> <0CE5A38A-76E1-40C8-8F0F-21AEE6A5C26C@hellmonds.eu>
Message-ID: <1efa01cface2$e1ec4d60$a5c4e820$@gmail.com>

I think that your/the ISO definition confirms/is consistent with Deidre`s initial statement (and my comment about cats and pigeons—both of whom in their own way ``can affect`` or ``are affected by… an activity``).

 

M

 

From: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:32 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: williams.deirdre at gmail.com; michael gurstein; McTim; Mawaki Chango
Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

 

It may be useful to refer to some of the definitions proposed by ISO, the International Standards Organization, such as this one:

 

2.27

stakeholder

any individual, group or organization that can affect, be affected by, or perceive themselves to be affected by a decision or activity

[SOURCE: ISO Guide 73:2009, 3.2.1.1, modified — The NOTE has been deleted.]

 

This particular guide is quoted in:

ISO/IEC TR 38502:2014(en)

Information technology — Governance of IT 

 

 

On 31 Jul 2014, at 18:20, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

Fair enough

--srs (iPad)




On 31-Jul-2014, at 21:31, williams.deirdre at gmail.com wrote:

 

I agree with you. But it is frequently perceived as being money or property of some kind, and it would be good to avoid confusion as much as possible. 

Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:19:34 

To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; michael gurstein<gurstein at gmail.com>

Cc: McTim<dogwallah at gmail.com>; Deirdre Williams<williams.deirdre at gmail.com>; Mawaki Chango<kichango at gmail.com>

Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

 

Tangible, concrete investment can mean just active involvement in a process, and contribution of personal expertise, time and effort to it.

 

--srs (iPad)

 

On 31-Jul-2014, at 21:04, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Hmmm... do cats announce their intentions to pigeons?

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim

Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:22 AM

To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Deirdre Williams

Cc: Mawaki Chango

Subject: Re: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process

 

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

 

<snip>

 

I would propose that a great part of the difficulty of definition is 

caused by the word "stakeholder", because a stakeholder is seen as 

being one with a tangible, concrete investment in a process.

 

I don't think that is the case at all.  I've never seen or heard anyone in IG make that kind of statement.

 

 

rgds,

 

McTim

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

  governance at lists.igcaucus.org

To be removed from the list, visit:

  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

 

For all other list information and functions, see:

  http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

To 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/4f301a63/attachment.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 kichango at gmail.com  Thu Jul 31 14:50:53 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:50:53 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgG3YxHYgBVE-=NJp3SYPQWqTaUbJjp=UvYTu_ehUVQbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2EB7953F-0035-4357-8732-16114CE67FC9@hserus.net> <53D07FCE.2080406@itforchange.net>
 <87C00B3C-EDB3-4FD4-BDAF-0DE3EE3FAF7D@gmail.com> <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxgG3YxHYgBVE-=NJp3SYPQWqTaUbJjp=UvYTu_ehUVQbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v_iMq3oKGB4AOm2nvN-f+WFPgR8S78mPG-UnnV8RedXwg@mail.gmail.com>

McTim,

Thanks for the clarification. See below.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:03 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mawaki,
>
> There are multiple flaws in Geneva based IG processes.  I will
> enumerate just a few.
>
> 1. They are not actually IG, they are what I call meta-IG or shadow IG.
>
> 2. The SGs are artificial and unnecessary except to silo people and
> perpetuate the power of governments.


Yes. Even national states (or nation-states) are artificial, save the
continuity (in most cases) of a geographical substratum. I guess one may
wish to see states and national borders erased from the earth, but instead
people get their identity defined by the tag of a nation-state and the ID
documents that come with it. Believe me, swap your passport with that of an
obscure small nation state and the world might make you feel you're almost
a different person altogether (at least when you often need to travel
around.)

>
> 3. The silos are self-perpetuating and carry over into things like
> IGFs and Net Mundial.  The notion of representation inherent in those
> silos takes us further away from the original notion of individuals
> speaking for themselves in shaping Internet policy.
>

Yes, then the question is how do we scale up? Individuals directly speaking
for themselves can only work well in settings up to certain size. I believe
it is the challenge of scaling up (say, to hundreds of millions of
individual stakeholders, the population size of multiple nation-states)
that makes it inevitable that entities such as governments, as traditional
representatives of nation-states, would find relevant and want to step in.
Otherwise how many corporeal entities in existence today can claim well
established history and capacity (institutional mechanisms) for
representing or counting for 1 million people as well as 500 million people
and more?

IMHO, the fact that the social artifact of nation-state is universal and
has (not perfect but) proven mechanisms for scaling up representation of
the public across a wide range of population sizes, thus enabling the
scaling up of other mechanisms that need to rely on such representation, is
part of the reason why the nation-states (and their
governments/representatives) are inevitable partners to reckon with at this
scale of MSism we need to deal with now (not just the type of MSism that
built and developed the Internet of the earlier couple of decades.) IOW,
we're being challenged to be no more no less than institutional
entrepreneurs and to come up with an alternate and matching solution that
could achieve the same (or maybe do it even better) while bypassing
national states or have them sit now in the backseat ---"the same" being
including and accounting for such sizes of populations of stakeholders,
beyond the much smaller internet protocol epistemic communities and with
different levels of knowledge, awareness, commitments and engagement.


> ICANN on the other hand is divided by Supporting Organizations, by
> functional area if you will.  These are then sometimes divided by
> Various constituencies and SGs, sometimes not.
>
> the cases where they are not are the most BUTOCy I find, and prefer
> them to the others.  YMMV.
>

It is a good thing to know your or anyone's preferred "use case" of MSism.
That helps identify the different flavors of MSism (different qualified
MSisms) and their best use or application. I think that is a good approach
as every version of MSism has its applicability as well as its limits (and
flaws if it gets applied to the wrong context), and it is a better approach
than concerning ourselves with who is wrong in their version of MSism
(after all, at this point in history no one can reasonably expect
governments and intergovernmental entities to put forward a version of
MSism that wouldn't have governments playing a prominent role... but at
least WSIS was a good start; at a minimum we just need to avoid setbacks
while improving on the practice and consolidating the notion.)

I realize I've gone a little too much in detail to explain my take and
response to your views on (a particular kind of) MSism, McTim, but I hope
everyone realizes that this is not meant as a discussion to be concluded by
who's right and who's wrong. In fact, my last paragraph above sums up what
I was getting at, and in that sense I agree with those us who already
stated here that to be useful any form of MSism need to be qualified, to be
defined within specific boundaries.

Cheers,

Mawaki



>
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Correction:
> >
> >  ...qualifying the need for distinction between stakeholder groups
> *[erase
> > --> which are regularly raised] when faced with nominating
> > representatives/delegates as a flaw (...) and then *faulting the
> Geneva-WSIS
> > type of MSism for it...
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/e0137e68/attachment.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 nb at bollow.ch  Thu Jul 31 15:57:06 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:57:06 +0200
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v_iMq3oKGB4AOm2nvN-f+WFPgR8S78mPG-UnnV8RedXwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org>
	<53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
	<AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba>
	<CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org>
	<53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
	<097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com>
	<20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
	<CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxgG3YxHYgBVE-=NJp3SYPQWqTaUbJjp=UvYTu_ehUVQbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v_iMq3oKGB4AOm2nvN-f+WFPgR8S78mPG-UnnV8RedXwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140731215706.559ed5de@quill>

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:50:53 +0000
Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, then the question is how do we scale up? Individuals directly
> speaking for themselves can only work well in settings up to certain
> size. I believe it is the challenge of scaling up (say, to hundreds
> of millions of individual stakeholders, the population size of
> multiple nation-states)

I think that we need to distinguish between

(a) “thinkers” who offer analysis, solution proposals, etc.

and

(b) “grass-roots voices” who speak to the concerns, needs, desires,
etc. of people on the ground.

In regard to 'a', I seriously doubt that a better process principle is
possible than the principle of individuals directly speaking for
themselves, and consequently analysis and proposals being evaluated on
the basis of their substantive merits (as opposed to them being
evaluated on the basis of how much political power has been organized
in support of each position.) The good news is that “thinkers” are good
at analyzing and categorizing etc, so when their number increases,
they're able to creatively self-organize in ways that address the
scaling problem, so if it is demanded of the “thinkers” to somehow
reduce the number of proposals for any given issue to a manageable
number, they can do it. (Not all have sufficiently compatible
viewpoints that they'll be able to productively collaborate, but if the
overall governance system ensures that proposals which are not based on
collaboration will only rarely be able to compete with proposals based
on significant collaboration, there is IMO nothing to worry about.)  

In regard to 'b', as far as I can see the challenges are in getting
enough people (who can legitimately and credibly speak to these
perspectives) to come and speak in the first place, and in getting
everyone else to listen to them (as opposed to the well-connected
insiders recommending each other for being on yet another panel.)
I honestly see no scaling problem in regard to 'b'. Quite the opposite.

In my view, the main challenge is not at all about scaling. It is about
decision making processes for choosing among competing views, and
specifically the challenge is about ensuring that in regard to
decisions which concern or affect public policy matters, those
decisions are made with appropriate democratic accountability (which
has two aspects, on one hand accountability to every person
individually in regard to the principles which are recognized as human
rights, and then a broader collective accountability which must be
based on the principle “one person, one vote.”)

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  Thu Jul 31 16:52:06 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:52:06 +0000
Subject: CS consensual statement on MSism WAS Re: [governance] Vint Verf
 tells us the conclusion of the complex IANA transition process
In-Reply-To: <20140731215706.559ed5de@quill>
References: <CAKx4trivGPa211rt_y4598Vanhtv8KLVPqS-=9GRvimFA1h6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN7nXAcHL=TVLL+brFJGbTNDV3bxzcf5YvWrxWLUoMEbfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D3BFBA.1020806@acm.org> <53D477E7.3010902@itforchange.net>
 <AF716F33707A441196388A4A2FF50C45@Toshiba> <CAHuaJtNR9PJD0Q7ECiH4dot4aWtdz4YLKgYi59wKFYxH3eDP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53D4F14B.4020103@acm.org> <53D50311.8050107@itforchange.net>
 <097101cfa9a9$44395950$ccac0bf0$@gmail.com> <20140727170421.21844b47@quill>
 <CACAaNxjdhd5qTTsF=zm2n2zLKMQmpeoSi2zp4nTbpcvowf_BYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8SiCUgYA5RsH=85fbqCa16_qq5bMW5vqeLhj3uMRVnjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxg+f-wXL3GmF6MZrYXUizXeAJ==rCA-H-s0FV_5oWBVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v-BoKdMFHVwTSPDeQZ0TQh7-Hm_mW_pwh+z5igWxet13A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v9kD_fuSXe9zLFu6W0kxxNgwEQeAu+FGG-8=dWyYPbtPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgG3YxHYgBVE-=NJp3SYPQWqTaUbJjp=UvYTu_ehUVQbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v_iMq3oKGB4AOm2nvN-f+WFPgR8S78mPG-UnnV8RedXwg@mail.gmail.com> <20140731215706.559ed5de@quill>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-kK_xFpctEKJqV4imRbbVuC=3oQ6hWWb=ykOWj1iWYZg@mail.gmail.com>

Would that have made more sense had I said that in this following way?
If one adopts the perspective of MSism as in "the original notion of
individuals
speaking for themselves in shaping Internet policy," then a scaling problem
arises at some point within that perspective? Because that was my starting
point. In a different perspective, that problem may go away, indeed may not
even exist.

However, I note that while saying scaling is not at all a problem in case
'b', you're still considering the number of people behind a solution path
("getting enough people") and still back at it ("one person, one vote")
even after considering some other qualitative ways of categorizing problems
and assessing solutions (weighing? "competing views"). Scaling will sooner
or later be a challenge or a relevant question (how to account for a
greater vis-a-vis a lesser number or how great is a greater number) in any
of the above two quantitative measurement means you alluded to in the
operationalization of 'b' as long as there's no prescriptive limit to the
number of people who can participate. Even a seemingly simple equation such
as "one person, one vote" is not always easy to implement in a
transnational, global online context. Not to mention that many people take
issue with that being the golden rule of participation when it comes to
decision-making for managing a large socio-technical infrastructure such as
the internet (but I guess that is a meta-level issue for another day.)

Mawaki


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:50:53 +0000
>

<snip>


> (b) "grass-roots voices" who speak to the concerns, needs, desires,
> etc. of people on the ground.
>

<snip>


> In regard to 'b', as far as I can see the challenges are in getting
> enough people (who can legitimately and credibly speak to these
> perspectives) to come and speak in the first place, and in getting
> everyone else to listen to them (as opposed to the well-connected
> insiders recommending each other for being on yet another panel.)
> I honestly see no scaling problem in regard to 'b'. Quite the opposite.
>
> In my view, the main challenge is not at all about scaling. It is about
> decision making processes for choosing among competing views, and
> specifically the challenge is about ensuring that in regard to
> decisions which concern or affect public policy matters, those
> decisions are made with appropriate democratic accountability (which
> has two aspects, on one hand accountability to every person
> individually in regard to the principles which are recognized as human
> rights, and then a broader collective accountability which must be
> based on the principle "one person, one vote.")
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140731/38196de9/attachment.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